Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Falkirk and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

NEW WRIT.

For County of Hertford (Hemel Hempstead Division), in the room of Gustavus Arthur Talbot, esquire, deceased.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

HUNGARY (DISARMAMENT).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what relation the numbers of the Army in Hungary bears to the number for the standing army laid down in the Treaty of Le Trianon: and why the terms of the Treaty relating to disarmament have not been carried out?

The UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Under the Treaty of the Trianon, concluded with Hungary (Article 104) "the total number of military forces in the Hungarian Army shall not exceed 35,000 men, including officers and depot troops," and, under Article 102, "within three months of the coming into force of the present Treaty the military forces of Hungary shall be demobilised to this extent." The Treaty has not yet been ratified, and is, therefore, not yet in operation. I am informed that the present forces in Hungary number about 36,000, and it will be the duty of the Military
Mission of Control, established under the Treaty, to reduce these forces to 35,000 within three months of the coming into force of the Treaty.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that there are some 350,000 armed and organised men in Hungary, and does not this entail the border States keeping up large armies, thus delaying their economic recovery and hampering our trade with them?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me some particulars of this vast army. I have no such particulars myself.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Will the hon. Gentleman telegraph to our representative in Buda Pesth, and make inquiry, in view of the fact that it is generally said that there are something like 300,000 men in arms in Hungary at the present time, and there is a great deal of anxiety in the neighbouring States?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I shall be glad to consider that suggestion.

CATTLE (GERMANY).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 2.
asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Reparations Commission has demanded the surrender of 810,000 milch cows from Germany; whether there is any shortage of milk in Belgium or France; whether approximately 500,000 children in Germany are being fed by the American missions; whether there is a shortage of milch cows in Germany due to slaughtering of cattle during the War and lack of cattle foods; and whether cows for Belgium and France could be obtained from cattle-exporting countries?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to my reply of to-day to a similar question by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Newbould)—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman in order in referring me to a reply to a question lower down on the Paper. Am I not entitled to have to answer to my own question?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know why the hon. Member for West Leyton is singled out as the recipient of the information. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Harms-worth) has some explanation?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think it is only due to a clerical error in the office. Numbers, too, on the Blue Paper that is circulated, are not always the same as the numbers on the White Paper that we get. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that no discourtesy whatever was intended.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Oh no! Then can I have the answer to my question?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that there is a considerable shortage of milk in France; but no serious shortage is reported from Belgium. I have no official information as to the activities of the American Mission. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the affirmative. The number of cattle in Germany on 1st December, 1913, was 20,994,000, on 1st March, 1919, 15,882,000, and on 1st June, 1920, just under 17,000,000. The decrease was due to excessive slaughtering during the War owing to shortage of fodder and the need for increasing meat supplies. It should be observed that in France during the period 1914–1919 the number of cattle fell from a total of 14,787,000 to a total of 12,373,000.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that the attitude of His Majesty's Government is, that while the necessary cows for France shall be extracted at all costs from Germany, that the policy pursued will not be any deliberate attempt to weaken the German nation in its development?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have just replied that the Reparation Commission have some discretion in that matter, and I have every belief that they are exercising it.

Captain LOSEBY: Is there not a short age of milch cows right throughout Europe, and if that is so, was it not causnd in the first instance by the German atrocities supported by the German people?

Mr HARMSWORTH: No doubt the shortage of milch cows in France is very largely due to the desolation caused by the German armies.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 5.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state how many head of livestock have been handed by Germany to France and Belgium under the Treaty of Versailles; whether Germany has delivered 72.5 per cent, of the number originally demanded and is continuing delivery of the remainder as fast as circumstances will permit; and whether the Reparation Commission has now made a further demand for a large number of cows from Germany, and, if so, how many?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Under paragraph 6 of Annex IV. of Part VIII. of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany undertook to deliver 184,000 head of cattle in equal monthly instalments in the three months following the coming into force of the Treaty. Up to the 2nth ultimo; i.e., in a period of more than nine months, the total number delivered amounted to 133,321, or 724 per cent, of the total requirement. The delivery of the remainder is continuing. I understand that no orders for the delivery of further cattle have been issued to Germany by the Reparation Commission, but that the Allied and Associated Governments interested have filed with the Reparation Commission demands for a large number of cattle in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 2 of the same annex. I understand further that the Reparation Commission has addressed a communication to the German Government inquiring within what period that Government will be able to satisfy these demands. If the hon. Member will refer to paragraph 4 of the annex he will observe that in reaching a decision on the demands filed with them, the Commission are to take into account, inter alin, such domestic requirements in Germany as it deems essential for the maintenance of Germany's social and economic life.

ALBANIA.

Major BARNES: 3.
asked the Undersecretary of State, for Foreign Affairs whether Albania was constituted a State under a European guarantee in 1913; whether the neutrality of Albania was invaded by both combatants during the
War; and whether the Allies propose to adhere to their pledges and recognise the right of this neutral State to live?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first and last parts of the question is in the affirmative. I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it was by the military efforts of the Allied Powers that the Austrian forces which had invaded Albania in 1915 were finally expelled from that country.

Major BARNES: Are we to understand that the Government are proposing to recognise the Government now existing in Albania which rests on a Parliamentary sanction?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think-that matter comes up for consideration just now.

MONTENEGRO.

Major BARNES: 4.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the De Salis Report on Serbian atrocities in Montenegro is going to be published; whether the Report in the possession of the Foreign Office on the massacres at Smyrna is going to be published; and if any Report of any commission since the Armistice in the possession of the Foreign Office has been published?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first and last parts of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the very full statement made in this House by the Prime Minister on the 22nd March last.

FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS (RECOGNITION).

Captain R. TERRELL: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many actual foreign governments are not recognised by His Majesty's Government; what are the reasons in each case; and whether recognition is to be extended to any of them at an early date?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: In view of the length of the reply, perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to have it printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is as follows:

In Europe the Governments of Foreign States which have not yet been recognised de jure by His Majesty's Government are:

1. Soviet Russia.
2. South Russia.
3. White Russian Republic.
4. Ukraine.
5. Latvia.
6. Esthonia.
7. Lithuania.
8. Albania.

The reason for non recognition are, in the case of Soviet Russia, the circumstances in which it came into power and the methods by which it hitherto has maintained itself, and in the case of the South Russian Government, the White Russian Republic and the Ukraine, the indefinite area over which those Governments claim authority and the uncertainty as to their future ability to establish themselves permanently as independent entities.

The Governments of Latvia, Esthonia, and Lithuania have been recognised de facto, but pending the establishment of more normal conditions in those parts, His Majesty's Government do not consider the time has come to recognise them de jure.

As regards Albania, His Majesty's Government have no information leading them to suppose that the Government at Tirana is in a position to exercise effective control over the territory it claims to administer.
In Asia, the territories claimed by the Governments of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan have not yet been settled, and full recognition of these Governments presents, in the circumstances, practical difficulties.

On the American Continent the Bolivian Government has been recognised provisionally, pending its establishment on a constitutional basis. The Mexican Government has not yet been recognised owing to the prolonged disorders in the country and the treatment of British interests by recent administrations.

BRITISH CONSULS, GERMANY.

Colonel BURN: 8.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs
if he will state how many consuls or vice-consuls have been appointed to take charge of British interests in Germany since diplomatic relations have been restored; will he give a list of the persons so appointed and the names of places to which such appointments, respectively, relate; whether they are either British-born or are British by descent; or, if not, what is their nationality?

Mr. KELLAWAY (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): Twenty consular officers, all of whom are British subjects, have been appointed to Germany since the resumption of diplomatic relations. I will have published in the OFFICIAL REPORT the information asked for in the second part of the question.
The following is the list of officers inferred to:

Berlin: Mr. Charlton, Consul-General; Captain Bowering, Vice-Consul.
Leipzig: Mr. Kohan, Consul.
Bremen: Mr. Gilliat-Smith, Consul.
Bremerhaven: Mr. Magowan, Vice-Consul.
Emden: Mr. Simpson, Vice-Consul.
Cologne: Mr. Thurston, Consul-General; Mr. Coultas, Vice-Consul.
Aix-la-Chapelle: Mr. Walker, temporary Vice-Consul.
Essen: Captain Edwards, Vice-Consul.
Dusseldorf: Mr. Mackinder, unsalaried Vice-Consul.
Frankfurt: Mr. Gosling, Consul-General; Mr. Barrow, Vice-Consul.
Mayence: Mr. Boyd-Wallis, temporary Vice-Consul.
Hamburg: Mr. Bemel, Acting Consul-General: Mr. Fell, Vice-Consul; Mr. Goldie, Vice-Consul.
Hanover: Mr. Anderson, unsalaried Vice-Consul.
Munich: Mr. Smallbones, Consul.
Stettin: Mr. Kelsall, Vice-Consul.

Colonel BURN: 9.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs by whom was Mr. Charlton, the British consul in Berlin, appointed and when; was any inquiry made concerning his qualifications or otherwise as to his fitness and, if so, from whom and when; and was any reference made to or any opinion obtained, or was any recommendation received on the subject from the British chargé d'affaires, Sir Francis Oppen-heimer?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Mr. Charlton was appointed to be His Majesty's Consul-General at Berlin by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 1st January, 1920. No special inquiry was necessary as to his qualifications, which were well-known to the Foreign Office, as he had been for 15 years in the Consular Service, and for four years before the War had been Vice-Consul at Berlin, and frequently acted as Consul-General. Sir F. Oppenheimer, who was never Chargé d'Affairs at Berlin, was not concerned in any way with the appointment.

Colonel BURN: 10.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of his Department has been called to the action of the British Consul-General in Berlin who, when asked to name an English solicitor whom applicants might consult upon questions of English law, has invariably recommended Mr. Albert M. Oppenheimer the brother of Sir Francis Oppenheimer, commercial attaché, to the detriment of the other solicitors of English birth and descent; whether he is aware that Mr. Albert M. Oppenheimer is not personally resident in Berlin, but has an office at 32, Victoria Street, London, S.W., and that the business in Berlin is transacted in his name by an employé or deputy; and whether all the legal business of the British Consulate in Berlin is passed on to Mr. Albert M. Oppenheimer instead of being shared by practitioners'?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am asking for further information in regard to this question and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.

TORONTO EXHIBITION (BRITISH INDUSTRIES).

Mr. WADDINGTON: 11.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has received any report of the inadequate representation of British industries at the recent Toronto Exhibition; and whether he proposes to take any action to influence British traders to exhibit in subsequent years, having regard to the great importance of the exhibition?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am fully aware of the importance of this exhibition. Mr. Field, His Majesty's Trade Commissioner at Toronto, who organised a Bureau of Information at the exhibition, has furnished me with a Report from which it is evident that a more adequate representation of United Kingdom industries is very desirable in future years. The Department of Overseas Trade will be glad to give any assistance it can with a view to securing this end, and is taking the opportunity of a visit which Mr. Field is at present paying to this country to discuss with him the steps which can best be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

OFFICERS (ESTABLISHMENT).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now say how many officers of the Regular Army there are surplus to the establishment; how many of them are on half-pay; whether he can say how many retired, Special Reserve, Territorial, and temporary officers are still being employed; what is the approximate annual cost of such officers; and whether, in view of the fact that nearly two years have elapsed since the Armistice, drastic steps will be taken to reduce such employed officers?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The establishments of officers of the Regular Army are not yet settled. The number of Regular officers at present serving are less than the numbers required to carry out the present duties. The number of Regular officers on half-pay is 819. They consist, to a large extent, of disabled officers. On the 1st October, 1920 (exclusive of those employed by the Government of India and other Government Departments) there were approximately the following numbers of retired, Special Reserve, Territorial Force, and temporary officers serving:—


Retired Pay
50


Special Reserve
600


Territorial
1,200


Temporary
4,150


Total
6,000


The approximate annual cost of these officers is £3,500,000. The situation generally as regards officers has been engaging the earnest attention of the War Office for some considerable time, and reductions have been made as and when they have become possible. The position is being continually reviewed and the case of each individual officer is investigated from time to time.

ROYAL SMALL ARMS FACTORY.

Mr. W. THORNE: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that piece-work prices are being reduced at the Royal Small Arms Factory; if he can state the reasons why the piece-work prices are being reduced; and whether any consultation had taken place between the workmen affected and the management of the factory?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am not aware of any reduction in the piece-work prices at Enfield. Perhaps the hon. Member will give me particulars of what he is referring to.

OFFICERS (EQUIPMENT).

Colonel YATE: 27.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what steps have now been taken to cheapen the cost of officers' uniforms; and what articles can now be purchased by officers from ordnance stores?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: A grant towards the provision of uniform will be given to every officer on being commissioned, and an Army Order on the subject is about to be issued. The grant will normally be £50, but in corps for which full dress is sanctioned the grant is increased to £135. Service pattern articles which form part of an officer's equipment, and clothing and necessaries of rank and file pattern, can, if desired, be purchased from store. Revolvers, binoculars and prismatic compasses, which officers have hitherto had to provide at their own expense, will in future be, issued free where necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY.

MARRTAGF ALLOWANCE.

Major NALL: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the lower rate of marriage allowance allowed in Army Order No. 357, of 1920,
is in the nature of a breach of faith with those married men who joined the Territorial Army prior to 4th October, 1920; and whether these men may be entitled to the higher rates of separation allowance for the remainder of their engagement?

Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): No, Sir. No men who enlisted in the Territorial Force were promised separation allowance at war rates for the whole period of their engagement. The pamphlet laying down the conditions of service in the Territorial Force distinctly stated "separation allowance as may be allowed for the Regular Army."

LODGING ALLOWANCE.

Major NALL: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether a sergeant instructor of the Territorial Army who provides his own house or lodging is liable under paragraph 14 of Army Order 357, 1920, to a deduction of 1s. per day for quarters; and whether, in view of the same Army Order, a sergeant instructor who provides his own furniture is entitled to draw furniture allowance?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: A sergeant instructor who provides his own house receives lodging allowance for the purpose; he is liable to a deduction of 1s. per day from his marriage allowance. Lodging allowance is designed to cover furnished lodgings. Sergeant instructors who occupy unfurnished quarters in County Association property draw furniture allowance.

LONDON UNITS, STAFF ACCOMMODATION.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the hardship inflicted upon members of the permanent staff of London Territorial units owing to lack of housing accommodation; whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to grant of travelling allowances where instructors have necessarily to reside a considerable distance from the headquarters of their units; whether it is the duty of the military authorities to provide adequate accommodation, or adequate lodging allowance in lieu thereof, for all men admitted to the married establishment of the Regular Army; whether he is aware that the Territorial Force Associations,
having themselves no authority to acquire property for the housing of these instructors, are considerably limited in their powers to help; and whether he will consider the desirability of not asking Territorial Force Associations to augment, from the Territorial Vote, allowances made to these Regular instructors, all expense in connection with whom, as Regular soldiers, should be met from Regular Army Votes?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am aware of the difficulties, which are not limited to the London area. But I cannot agree to a grant of travelling allowances which could not be extended to the lest of the Army. We have endeavoured to meet the position by encouraging the associations to provide suitable accommodation in kind, and have given them authority to rent, purchase, or construct such accommodation. I am glad to say that considerable progress has been made in this direction. With regard to the last part of the question, I see no reason in principle why associations' funds should not be employed in this connection. The permanent staff is an integral part of the Territorial Force, and their pay is provided with all the other charges of the Force under Head II. of the Army Estimates.

WAR MEDAL.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a Territorial war medal is to be given to every Territorial officer, noncommissioned officer and man who was in the Territorial Force establishment on mobilisation, 4th August, 1914, but that no Territorial who has earned the 1914 or 1915 star will receive this medal, which will be a unique medal and exclusively a Territorial war medal for men who joined for their country's defence before the War, and who had served from one year to 30 years in the Territorials; and, if so, whether this decision will be reconsidered.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that I can add nothing to my previous replies to questions on this subject. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member in particular to the answers which I gave on the 9th March and the 11th May last.

Sir B. FALLE: Will my right hon. Friend give some reconsideration to this
matter, seeing that the Territorials of 25 and 30 years' service is placed on the basis of a man with 20 months' service?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The argument on which those claims foundered was that with the War medal, the inter-Allied medal, and the Mons medal there were three, and an additional medal would give an undue advantage to the Territorial Force over their Regular comrades in arms.

STRENGTH.

Captain R. TERRELL: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for War what was the exact number of officers and men of the new Territorial Army at the latest date on which figures were available?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of officers appointed to the Territorial Force up to 1st November is 4,865. The total number of recruits up to 29th October is 64,057; and, in addition, 4,682 men have registered their names but are not yet reported to have attested.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESOPOTAMIA.

POLITICAL SITUATION.

STATEMENT BY MR. BONAR LAW.

Sir D. MACLEAN: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether he has any further information in regard to the mission of Sir Percy Cox?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): This is a long reply, but I think that the House would wish me to read it.
An appreciation of the political situation has now been received from Sir Percy Cox, High Commissioner, Mesopotamia.
The energetic steps taken to suppress the rising have proved so successful that there is no further cause for serious anxiety. The arrival of Sir Percy Cox aroused general expectancy as to the steps which he proposed to take in the direction of giving effect to the intention of His Majesty's Government to form a national Government. Already for some time past a Committee of about 30
ex-deputies has been occupied in framing an electoral law for the creation of a representative Congress of all sections of the people of Mesopotamia. The draft of this law will be complete very shortly, but a considerable period must elapse before the elections can be completed and a decision reached on fundamental issues. Meanwhile, to meet the immediate requirements of the situation, the High Commissioner has adopted the following purely provisional measures:
The Naqib of Baghdad, whose public prestige and the respect in which he is generally held make him eminently suited for the position, has been invited to form a Council of State, with himself as President, for the conduct of the administration until such time as a National Assembly can meet and decide upon the future form of Government. This Council of State will be representative of all parts of the country, and will consist of 17 or 18 members. Of these members, eight (in addition to the Naqib himself) will hold portfolios for the administration of the existing Departments, with the advice of the present Secretaries and subject to the guidance and direction of a High Commissioner. The portfolios, which are to be assigned by the Naqib, are as follows:—Minister for the Interior, Minister for Finance, Minister for Justice, Minister for Pious Foundations (namely, something in the nature of our Charity Commission), Minister for Education, Minister for Defence, Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Commerce.
It is understood that the following gentlemen have been invited by the Naqib to accept office in the Provisional Government: Saiyid Talib Pasha (Basrah), Sassoon Effendi Haskail (who held office under the Ottoman Government before the War), Hassan Pachachi (a leading lawyer of Baghdad), Mustapha 'Alusi (Baghdad, formerly Qadhi of Mecca), Izzat Pasha (Kirkuk), Ja'afar Pasha (who held rank as Major-General in the army of Emir Feisal), Muhammad Fadhli (Mayor of Mosul), and 'Abdul Latif Pasha al Mandil (leading merchant of Basrah). The remaining members of the Council include a leading Christian of Baghdad and one of Mosul, a prominent Kurd of Sulaimaniyah, the head of a leading Shia' family of Baghdad, and two of the most influential Shaikhs among the settled Shia' tribes.
The distribution of portfolios will be reported later. The above steps were taken by the High Commissioner after visits to all three Vilayets (Basrah, Baghdad and Mosul), during which he interviewed all important Shaikhs and leaders of opinion both publicly in Durbar and privately in conversation with each important individual, to whom he explained the policy of His Majesty's Government and the objects of his own Mission.

Lieut - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if a Grand Council is going to be assembled in Ireland to administer the law in that country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask if my right hon. Friend is aware of the very large opinion that there should be a Debate on this question, and whether, in consequence of the very important statement which he has just made, he does not think that it is quite desirable that there should be a Debate? Would he give a day or half a day between now and Christmas having regard to the fact that the Secretary of State said that probably the Supplementary Estimate would not be introduced until next Session?

Mr. BONAR LAW: In any case, I will consider the suggestion, but I think, probably, it is desirable that we should first have a written communication from Sir Percy Cox. This has only come by telegraph.

GARRISON EXPENDITURE.

M. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War what was the expenditure in Mesopotamia from 1st April to 30th September last?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 27th October to the hon. Mumber for Clitberoe.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the statement cover the whole of the period referred to?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it gives all the information we can give at the present time, but I think it would be desirable to have a calculation made of the not extra cost of the Mcsopotamian garrison, and I will endeavour to have that done.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that we get that information before the Debate on the Supplementary Estimate taka place?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly. I think that is very desirable. I did not know that any Debate was immediately in prospect.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Supplementary Estimate will be laid on the Table?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As at present advised I do not think it will be necessary this Session. I think it will come on after Christmas. As far as I can see up to the present there is sufficient money available to carry on for the, time being. There are considerable economies in other branches of the service.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a desire on the part of a very large number of Members to discuss the question of Government expenditure in Mesopotamia, and if it cannot be raised on the Supplementary Estimate, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Leader of the House as to when we can have an opportunity, which I gather the House generally desires, for a discussion?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Nobody knows better than my right hon. Friend what are the resources at the disposal of the Opposition with regard to the discussion of any question they may desire to raise.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, in answer to a question, that there would be a Supplementary Army Estimate before Christmas?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of that. There must be a Supplementary Estimate for the Army before the expenditure of the year is disposed of by Parliament. Whether that will be before Christmas or when we re-assemble I cannot tell. My own feeling was that there would be no financial reason for bringing it on.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the very great desire in quarters of the House where we do not desire to move a vote
of want of confidence in the Government to discuss the right hon. Gentleman's proceedings in Mesopotamia?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No doubt that de sire can be represented in quarters where an authoritative answer can be given. I have to come before the House when I require money, and I do not immediately require money.

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War what has been the total expenditure on account of the garrisoning of Mesopotamia and the military operations carried out therein from the armistice with Turkey to the present date?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that the form in which the accounts for Parliament have been kept does not enable me to give the figures asked for.

RUSSIA.

GENERAL BALAHOVITCH.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any British military representatives are with the forces of General Balahovitch or Permikin?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

ARMISTICE DAY.

Major NALL: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether all units of the Territorial Force will be allowed to send representative officers and other ranks to the Armistice Day ceremonial parades, or on what basis the Territorial Force will be represented?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that considerations of numbers and space in Westminster Abbey preclude the individual representation of every unit of the Regular Army and Territorial Force. Each regiment in the Army will, however, send three representatives on behalf of the regiment as a whole, and one of these representatives will be detailed from a Territorial battalion of the regiment concerned. In addition, the Honourable Artillery Company, the Yeomanry, and the County of London Regiment will supply small detachments to represent the non-affiliated units of the Territorial Force.

IRELAND.

REPRISALS (POLICE AND MILITARY).

Mr. MOSLEY: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for War who supplied the troops breaking out of barracks to perform recent and admitted cases of reprisals in Ireland with lists of the leading Sinn Feiners which enabled them to discriminate between houses of Sinn Feiners and those of innocent people; and whether it is the practice of the military intelligence service in Ireland to circulate its secret information to the rank and file of the forces stationed in that country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question, the identity of many leading rebels is common knowledge in most Irish towns, and is in many cases blatantly advertised by the individuals themselves. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for War what method is adopted at military dep6ts and barracks in Ireland for checking the issue of petrol, hand grenades, ammunition, and other Government stores; whether soldiers are able to obtain such articles for reprisals on Irish towns, as in the case of the recent raids on Bandon and Mallow, among others; whether soldiers are allowed to use motor lorries without permission for entering Irish towns at night; and what steps are being taken to prevent the use of Government vehicles and stores for reprisals in the future?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that most careful arrangements have been made for safeguarding petrol, ammunition and hand grenades, and for checking issue, and also to have them ready for instant use when required for the support of the police. Except on escort duty, soldiers are not allowed to use the lorries. There is only one case known, at Mallow, in which motor vehicles were taken without permission, and disciplinary action was taken in this case.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state how the troops at Bandon and elsewhere managed to get petrol if it is carefully checked, and what is done to see that the petrol and other stores are not taken in moments of excitement?

Mr. CHURCHILL: With regard to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to what I have already said. As to the first part, I understand that inquiries are still proceeding.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With regard to Mallow, what disciplinary action has been taken by the Government with regard to the soldiers who took Government lorries without permission for a joy ride at night—

Mr. STANTON: Shut up!

Mr. J. JONES: Golliwog!

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am endeavouring to give a serious answer to a question put in rather an offensive form. As far as I know, the inquiries which have taken place in Ireland by the Command has led to a decision to try several soldiers and non-commissioned officers by court-martial, and until those trials are completed it is not possible for me to make any further statement.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether there has been a renewal in the last two days of the policy of reprisals, Littleton, Thurles, Tralee, Bally-bunion, and Ballyduff; and whether he is now prepared to give a definite assurance that the Government will take immediate and adequate steps to break down this policy of frightfulness which is aggravating the already deplorable conditions in Ireland?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut. - Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I only received notice of this question at noon, and have been quite unable to get reports from the five different places mentioned by the hon. Member. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no Government policy of reprisals. What are called reprisals are frequently legitimate acts of self-protection by police and soldiers in searching houses, shops, and other premises for criminals, ammunition, and explosives. The five places mentioned in the hon. Member's question are towns in Tipperary and Kerry; there have been four policemen murdered and ten wounded with the last few days, and a thorough search for the assassins is proceeding in these counties.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the "Times" newspaper
has made a definite charge against the Government that they are the originators of this policy of reprisals, and if that is a false statement is he prepared to prosecute the "Times"?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not aware of the statement myself; but in law a misstatement is not necessarily a ground for action. Anybody can accuse the Cabinet of any crime and be free from legal action.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously assert that the making of a misstatement in a newspaper is not an offence, while he himself is prosecuting the "Freeman's Journal" in Ireland for this offence?

Lord R. CECIL: Is it not a fact that these statements, which have been made repeatedly by the newspapers and in public; have not yet been denied by the Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have denied them at different times myself, and I deny them now.

Mr. DEVLIN: I press for an answer to my question. If it is an offence for which Irish newspapers are brought before courts-martial in Ireland to make statements which are not true, and if this statement be untrue, why is "The Times" not prosecuted, and other newspapers in this country ns well as Irish newspapers?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the fact that if a newspaper in this country were prosecuted for making an untrue statement it could plead the custom of the trade and get off?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If there is no policy of reprisals, has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the speech of the Prime Minister at Carnarvon and of the Secretary of State for War at Dundee condoning excesses committed by troops and police in Ireland?

Mr. STANTON: What would you do if you were an Irish policeman doing your duty? I would if I were one of them.

Mr. J. JONES: Why do you not be one of them?

Mr. STANTON: Why do not you?

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member not to interrupt the proceedings.

Mr. STANTON: I am sorry, but may I call your attention to the other hon. Member? I suppose I have some rights as this House as well as the Bolshies.

Mr. JONES: You ought to be put into Madame Tussaud's.

Mr. STANTON: All right, Sitting Bull.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the continuance of the burning of creameries, the firing of towns, and the destruction of life by the forces of the Crown, and, in view of the aggravation of the appalling conditions in Ireland which these outrages have created, the immediate necessity for such strong and vigorous action on the part of the Government as will put an end to this disastrous policy of frightfulness.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that I can not accept the hon. Member's Motion. With regard to the continuance of the burning of creameries, there has been no evidence whatever since the last Debate. With regard to the firing of towns, the only evidence is founded on newspaper reports. The hon. Members asked questions to-day and the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that he was not in a position either to accept or deny the reports. I think, therefore, the hon. Member ought to wait until he receives some information. The same remark applies to the destruction of life by the forces of the Crown. I do not think there has been any further evidence to-day, but, if the hon. Member to-morrow has any evidence, or if the Department has any information upon any of these matters, I shall be quite prepared to consider a further proposal.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Thank you. I shall move the question to-morrow, in case the conditions which you lay down are fulfilled.

ALDERMAN MCSWINEV (FUNERAL).

Sir W. DAVISON: 39.
asked the Home Secretary what charge to public funds was involved by reason of the public funeral granted by the authorities to the Lord Mayor of Cork, a brigadier-general in the Irish republican army, who committed suicide by starvation in Brixton prison prior to the expiration of his sentence of imprisonment; how many
police were employed in connection with the said funeral; what was the cost of the special steamer which was used convey the lord mayor's body from Holyhead to Cork; under what Vote will this expenditure come before the House; and what is the estimated loss to the business community by reason of all traffic being suspended in a large portion of Central London and the City for nearly an hour?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): No public funeral was given by the authorities. The funeral was arranged by the prisoner's friends, and its cost will fall on them. It is not desirable to give the number of police employed along the route to maintain order and regulate the traffic. I understand the cost of the steamer has not yet been ascertained, nor has it been determined by the Treasury on what Vote the charge will fall. It is, of course, impossible to estimate the loss, if any, caused by the, suspension of traffic, but the police did their utmost to minimise the obstruction, and I understand that the delay was not serious.

Captain LOSEBY: Is the hon. Baronet aware that there is a strong body of opinion in this country which cordially supported the Government in their last action in paying respect to a brave and possibly misguided man?

DUNOANNON (DISTURBANCES)

Mr. DEVLIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is a fact that following the wounding of a policeman at Dungannon Town a number of armed and disguised men invaded the town and discharged grenades, rifles and revolvers; whether any business premises were wrecked; whether the Ulster Volunteers were communicated with and turned out and, with the assistance of a large crowd who congregated quickly, began to make reprisals, bombs being thrown into many large trading establishments, while other sections of the crowd, with petrol supplies, carried on the work of destruction; and what steps have been taken to protect inoffensive citizens from these disgraceful attacks?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I only received this question at noon to-day. I have communicated with Dungannon, and
asked for an immediate report on the allegations made by the hon. Member, but must point out with all respect that it is quite impossible to give a specific answer to a long series of charges of this kind within a few hours after they are made. I may state generally that it is true that a policeman was wounded in Dungannon on Sunday night. It is the first unhappy event of that kind that has occurred in Dungannon, and I am told, not officially, but from other sources, that the whole countryside is up searching for the assassin or attempted assassin.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is it not the duty of the right hon. Gentleman as Minister responsible for order in Ireland, to have information regarding incidents of this character that have occurred almost two days ago? May I ask whether he reads the. "Morning Post," as he ought as a Member of the Government, and if so, whether he has not read of these things in that newspaper, and whether he proposes to prosecute the "Morning Post"?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I endeavour to read as many papers as I can in order to inform myself. Let me point out to the hon. Member, if I may, in answer to his supplementary question, that when an unhappy event of this kind occurs, every policeman and every police officer and every soldier and every military officer is at once on day and night duty in trying to ferret out those who are responsible for the assassination or attempted assassination, and it is very difficult to get immediately a detailed report of the incident. It is very easy for a pressman on the spot to telegraph any information he may have, or the events which he may see, direct to his newspaper. I can only answer through the proper channels—the men who are responsible.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether the same passionate activities which the right hon. Gentleman describes as being displayed by the military and police in trying to find out who wounded this policeman are also being manifested in trying to bring to justice the malefactors who burn the homes of decent and inoffensive citizens?

Mr. COOTE: May I ask the Chief Secretary if it is not a fact that the
parish priest of Dungannon himself has stated that the attack upon the policeman was the attack of a man trying to murder the policeman, and that well-disposed people af all shades of opinion in the district are horrified at the attempted outrage in Dungannon?

Mr. O'CONNOR: In view of the testimony from the hon. Member who has just addressed a question to the House, which is in accordance with the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman himself, that this attack on the policeman was condemned by the parish priest and by the general community, is not that an additional reason for protecting the lives and property of these innocent people who condemned the offence.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: T can assure the hon. Member that every effort is made to protect the lives and property of the innocent and inoffensive people, but who are innocent and inoffensive——

Mr. DEVLIN: Disgraceful!

Sir H. GREENWOOD: ——is a matter of which I have, no official knowledge.

Mr. DEVLIN: Disgraceful!

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

WAR GRATUITIES (DEDUCTIONS FOR DEBT).

Mr. RENDALL: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has the power, as Secretary of State for Air or as Secretary of State for War, to deduct debts alleged to be due by soldiers from their war gratuities?

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War if any deduction may be made from the amount due to a soldier or airman on discharge as war gratuity on account of any debt incurred during service in the field?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The war gratuity of soldiers is not attachable for debt other than one arising from deficiencies in articles of equipment specified on the dispersal certificate. In the case of airmen, deductions are made in very exceptional uses. The Royal Warrant provides that the war gratuity granted to an airman may be held liable to meet any public
claim that may be outstanding against him, any Service debt that may be due from him, and any Service claim that the Air Council may direct him to pay. In ordinary cases, however, this liability is not enforced.

Mr. RENDALL: Why is a difference made between airmen and ordinary soldiers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like to investigate that point.

APPEALS.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 69.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that nearly one applicant in every three who appeals to the Ministry of Pensions Tribunal is successful in his appeal; and if he will take such steps as may be necessary to avoid putting so many persons to the trouble of appealing?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The proportion of appellants successfully appealing to the tribunal is approximately as stated, but it is necessary to bear in mind that the proportion of appeals to rejected claims is less than 15 per cent. Thus the successful appeals represent less than 5 per cent, of the adverse decisions given by the Ministry, and this fact may, I think, be regarded as a testimony to the care with which all claims are considered in the first place. No claim is rejected by the Ministry without the most careful consideration of all the relevant facts of the case; and my right hon. Friend does not consider that any further steps in the direction suggested can reasonably be expected of him.

ROYAL AIR FORCE.

PRISONERS OF WAR, FIELD ALLOWANCES.

Sir FRANCIS LOWE: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether officers of the Royal Flying Corps were paid 5s. a day field allowance whilst they were prisoners of war, but offices of the Royal Naval Air Service were not paid this allowance under the same conditions; and whether any steps are now being taken to remedy this inequality of treatment?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Issues of field allowance, lodging allowance, and fuel and light allowance were made to officers
of the Royal Flying Corps who were prisoners of war at varying rates, according to their rank in the service. These amounted, in the case of lieutenants and second-lieutenants, to about. 5s. a day. As from 1st April, 1918, when the Royal Flying Corps and Royal Naval Air Service were amalgamated, the same allowances as had been previously issued to the Royal Flying Corps were authorised for all officers of the Royal Air Force who were prisoners of war. Any question relating to the allowances payable to officers of the Royal Naval Air Service before the 1st April, 1913, should be addressed to the Admiralty.

AIR CONFERENCE (RESOLUTIONS).

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: (by Private Notice.) asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he proposes to take in regard to the resolutions passed by the Air Conference?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The proceedings of the Air Conference are to be published as a Command Paper.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can we have an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will bring the very important resolution relating to Egypt before the Cabinet at the earliest possible moment, so that it may be fully considered before the conclusion of the negotiations?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have already done so.

DAYLIGHT SAVING ACT.

Mr. WILLIAM SHAW: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that experience of its working makes the farmers increasingly dissatisfied with the Daylight Saving Act; and, if the Act cannot be abolished, will he consider curtailing its operation so that it shall only be in force from May to August?

Sir J. BAIRO: I am aware that there is some dissatisfaction among agriculturists regarding this measure. The question of the effect of the system on agriculture has been repeatedly considered, and the Government have not seen their way to shorten the period as suggested; but the whole subject will come under the consideration of Parliament when the Government introduce their Bill to make the system permanent.

Captain ELLIOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that before any further extension of the Daylight Saving Act is made representatives of the agricultural industry will be consulted?

Sir J. BAIRD: The Daylight Saving Act has been extended by the Emergency Laws Continuation Bill for a year after the Peace. Before any further extension is made, of course the House will have to be consulted.

Captain ELLIOT: I was referring rather to extensions, such as that made on the occasion of the miners' strike.

WOMEN JURORS.

Captain R. TERRELL: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether any instructions have been issued as to the calling of women jurors; whether any fixed percentage of men jurors is recommended; whether a prisoner can demand to be tried by a jury of his or her own sex; and whether the right to challenge can be exercised in regard to sex alone?

Sir J. BAIRD: Rules have been made under the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act with regard to the service of women on juries by the Rule Committee of the Supreme Court on the 12th July last, and by the Rule Committee established under the Indictments Act on the 15th of the same month. They provide that on every panel of jurors men and women shall be ass nearly as possible in the =same proportion as in the list from which the panel is drawn. A prisoner is not entitled to be tried by a jury of his or her own sex, but it is within the discretion of a court, on application made to it, to order that a jury shall be composed wholly of men or wholly of women. The right of challenge remains as it was before the Act. It is for the court in each case to determine how it may be exercised.

MOTOR CARS (POLICE CONTROLS).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 35.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can ensure that police officers employed in controlling traffic, in main thoroughfares in London have in all cases full instructions as to where motor vehicles waiting in such thoroughfares should be parked while
waiting; and can arrangements be made for motor vehicles to be under police supervision while so parked?

Sir J. BAIRO: The police do their best to direct drivers to suitable places for waiting, but they cannot, of course, guarantee that there is room in any particular place. Police supervision is given to waiting motor vehicles, so far as possible, but they cannot accept responsibility for vehicles left unattended.

Viscount CURZON: Seeing that the in structions with regard to the parking of motor vehicles in London are altered almost every week, cannot we have some definite publication showing where motor vehicles may be parked when waiting in important thoroughfares?

Sir J. BAIRD: I am afraid I cannot agree with my Noble Friend that the regulations arc, altered weekly. I do not think that anything more can be done. The police have to use common-sense, and do the best they can for the convenience of the public.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman provide better accommodation at the police courts for Members of the House against whom proceedings are taken under the Act?

Sir J. BAIRD: I think the ordinary accommodation is quite good enough.

Viscount CURZON: 36.
asked the Home Secretary whether any special instructions have recently been issued to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in respect to the control of the speed of motor vehicle traffic; and whether it is intended to carry out any experiments with the automatic electric light control system in the Metropolitan Police area such as is used at night in towns in certain foreign countries?

Sir J. BAIRD: No special instructions of the nature indicated have recently been issued to the Commissioner. If the second part of the question refers to what is known in America as the traffic towers, the Commissioner of Police does not propose, at any rate at present, to experiment with these in London.

Viscount CURZON: 37.
asked the Home Secretary how many controls were in operation in the Metropolitan Police Area for timing of motor vehicles exceeding the speed limit between a.m. and
p.m; how many controls for the detection of cases of driving to the common danger was instituted; how many police officers were employed in each case; how many cases of exceeding the speed limit were reported; how many cases of dangerous driving either by control or officers on point duties were reported; and in what areas most of these offences were reported?

Sir J. BAIRD: During the week-end a.m. 30th October to p.m. 1st November two controls were operated to detect infringements of the speed limit; six officers were employed, and seven cases of excessive speed were reported for prosecution. Five controls were in operation to detect cases of dangerous driving, and four officers were employed. Four cases of dangerous driving were reported by officers on control duties and eight by officers employed on traffic or fixed point duties. The greatest number of cases was reported in the inner area.

DISTURBANCE, WHITEHALL.

Mr. LAWSON: 38.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the difference of opinion as to who were responsible for the trouble which arose in Whitehall on the 18th October in connection with the demonstration of unemployed, he proposes to institute an Inquiry into the whole of the circumstances?

Sir J. BAIRD: My right hon. Friend has gone fully into the circumstances, and is satisfied that the outbreak was caused by a disorderly crowd which had gathered in the vicinity of the procession but did not form part of it, and that the police were in no way to blame.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Baronet aware that there are a considerable number of people outside—responsible people —who question that decision, and does he not think, in view of the fact that this is the second incident of the kind within the last few months, that it is wise to investigate the cause of such disturbances, in order that steps may be taken to avoid such scenes as happened recently?

Sir J. BAIRD: I do not think that any further investigation is called for. A very full report was made on the subject, and my right hon. Friend was quite satisfied
that the police did their duty; and, as I have stated, the disorders arose, not from those who were taking part in the procession, but from a totally different let of people altogether.

Mr. LAWSON: May I ask upon what evidence the report concerning this question was based?

Sir J. BAIRD: The evidence of the officers who furnished the report. My right hon. Friend is entirely responsible for the attitude and action of those officers, and he assumed complete responsibility for it in this case as in all others.

Mr. LAWSON: In order to know the true cause, is it not necessary to know both sides of the situation, and are there not people who hold quite a different opinion from the finding of the Home Office?

Sir J. BAIRD: I am afraid that there will always be two opinions upon every thing. We have to go by the reports of the responsible officers, and I do not think that there is any chance of the case being re-opened.

Mr. J. JONES: Will it be arranged in future that the officers in charge of the various districts of the Metropolitan Police will be left in charge of their own contingents, and not someone who is a stranger to the people who have to control the crowd, seeing that men who know the people are able to deal with them better?

Sir J. BAIRD: I do not think that that point arises. There was nothing abnormal in the treatment of the crowd on this occasion.

Mr. JONES: Is it not a fact that the charge has been made against the police authorities that it was owing to the change of control that the trouble occurred?

Sir J. BAIRD: There was a charge that the police had ordered the procession to move on, but that charge has been disproved. The order for the procession to move on was given by the representative of the organisers of the Workers' Union, who was in charge of the procession.

Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Baronet give an assurance that, as far as possible, due warning will be given to a large crowd or collection of people, possibly including women, before mounted police are employed?

Sir J. BAIRD: Everything possible was done, but when a situation such as this arises the police have to do the best they can.

Mr. DEVLIN: Would it not be better for the hon. Gentleman to copy the Chief Secretary for Ireland and deny everything?

SCOTLAND.

EDUCATION RATES.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 40.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the cost of the Education Act per annum per scholar in the parish of Hounam in 1918–19 was £8 and in 1920–21 it is £18 1s. in the parish of Yarrow it was £4 and now £16; in Garngunnock £6, now £37 17s. 6d.; in Drymen £7, now £68; in Killearn £2 6s. Id., now £31 13s. 4d.; Strathblane £4 2s., now £40 19s.; Baldernoek £5 19s., now £31 4s. 3d.; Fenwick £1, now £16; in Largs £3 10s. 10d., now £22 7s. 10d; in Arrochar £5, now £24 3s., and that practically all the other rural parishes in Scotland are similarly afflicted; was he aware when he introduced the Act that it would have such an effect upon the rates; if he was aware, was any public indication given to the ratepayers that such increases were to be inflicted upon them so as to enable them to defend themselves; and, if such rates are continued, does he think that rural ratepayers will be able to have any children to send to school?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): As to the first and second parts of the question, while I have not verified the actual figures quoted, it is a matter of common knowledge that there has been a marked rise in the education rate in many rural parishes in Scotland. As to the third and fourth parts, in so far as this rise is duo to the same causes as have produced a rise in the cost of the other necessaries of life, I think that its full extent was not and could not have been foreseen. On the other hand, in so far as it is the result of the Act, I was, of course, aware that the enlargement of education areas, which involved an equalisation of contribution from the constituent parts of each, was bound to result in a gain to some parishes and a loss to others. I have no reason to
suppose that, in the many discussions that took place regarding the Act, both inside and outside of the House, this obvious consideration was absent from the minds of those who interested themselves in the matter. The last part of the question is, I apprehend, intended to be humorous rather than serious.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this enormous increase of rates in this and other parishes will make it almost impossible for those who have large families of children to raise those families—that it takes them all their time to keep in touch with the butcher and the baker and to feed them? Is he not aware that in the country districts of Scotland there will be no satisfaction till his entire Act is repealed, and is he willing to apply the principle of local veto to this Education Act?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that, may I ask whether he is aware that this opposition to education of the people is more imaginary than real, and limited mainly to questions in this House?

Mr. MUNRO: It is difficult to answer all the questions which have been put to me, but I am rather inclined to agree, if I may say so, with my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Thomas). With regard to what, my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Macquisten) has said about local veto, I understand that he has just come back from a campaign against that principle, and I am, therefore, rather surprised that he should seek to apply the principle to education. I think the form of this question suggests that this matter can be much better discussed in another way than by question and answer. I hope to have an opportunity of meeting my Scottish colleagues next week to discuss this question, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be there.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the objection in Scotland is absolutely overwhelming in every district; that, when I mentioned it at any meeting recently in Scotland, it was greeted with a storm of derision and hatred there; and that nothing has moved the feelings of the Scottish people more deeply than that this Act has been imposed upon them?

Mr. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman of opinion that the audiences that the hon. and learned Member would meet would be the best judges?

Mr. MUNRO: I do not know what audiences my hon. and learned Friend would meet, but I claim to be as well acquainted with the feeling in Scotland as he is, and I think that his interpretation of that feeling has been grossly exaggerated.

Sir J. D. REES: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that, on the occasion of the discussion of the Scottish Estimates, when an hon. Member wished to raise this question he had no opportunity of so doing; and has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of abating this oppression, which is obvious to every visitor to Scotland?

Mr. MUNRO: The incident to which my hon. Friend refers was one which I could not possibly have prevented. The discussion on the Scottish Estimates was limited through no fault of mine. With regard to the remedy for the problem which undoubtedly exists, that is to be discussed among the Scottish Members at the earliest possible moment, with a view to finding a remedy.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are some thing like 300 or 400 parishes—

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Alexander Sprot.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: 41.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is now prepared with some form of relief for parishes where the substitution of the county for the parish as the rating unit for education is causing hardships?

Mr. MUNRO: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I am giving this matter my most anxious consideration, and that I will welcome any specific suggestion for a solution of the problem which may come from him or from any other responsible person.

Sir A. SPROT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, so long ago as December last, he gave me an assurance, and gave the same assurance to a deputation, that the Department have under their consideration the possibility of devising some suitable form of relief for parishes where the substitution of the county for the
parish as the rating unit for education may have caused hardship?

Mr. MUNRO: The Department is undoubtedly engaged in considering that matter now, but the solution of the difficulty is not nearly so easy as my hon. and gallant Friend seems to think. As I have said, if he has any suggestion to make I shall be most happy to consider it

Sir A. SPROT: Is it not from the right hon. Gentleman that the suggestion ought to come, and not from me?

Mr. MUNRO: I shall certainly be ready to make proposals when I have the honour of meeting my Scottish colleagues, but I am far from regarding myself as the only fount of wisdom in this matter, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will assist me.

FIARS PRICES.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: 61.
asked the Secretary for Scotland when the Bill dealing with Fiars Prices in Scotland will be presented?

Mr. MUNRO: My hon. and gallant Friend probably refers to the Bill to deal with Teinds and Stipends. The Bill has now been drafted, and I hope it may be possible to introduce it at an early date.

Sir J. HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this Bill is not passed this Session a totally new situation will arise, and the whole of the agreement that has been arrived at between the parties concerned, after considerable time and difficulty, will be lost?

Mr. MUNRO: As I was a party to the consultation between the interests concerned, I am well aware of the urgency of the matter, and I hope, therefore, it may be possible to pass the Bill.

Sir J. HOPE: This Session?

Mr. MUNRO: I hope so.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 64.
asked the Secretary for Scotland how many cases in which farms had been scheduled for the purposes of setting up small holdings the notices have been withdrawn; what area is involved in these notices; and for what reason they have been withdrawn?

Mr. MUNRO: The Board of Agriculture have withdrawn notices issued by them under Sub-section (9) of Section 9 of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, in respect of 25 farms, embracing an area of approximately 27,000 acres. In the majority of these cases, this course was rendered necessary because, owing to the rise in prices generally, commitments in respect of other approved schemes had so increased as to render it inexpedient to proceed with the schemes to which the notices in question referred.

Major M. WOOD: 65.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether instructions have been issued to the Small Holdings Commissioners prohibiting them from in specting ground for new schemes of small holdings, and directing that no new schemes entailing settlement of land by Whitsunday, 1921, are to be considered; and, if so, on what grounds these instructions have been issued?

Mr. MUNRO: The policy of the Board is to concentrate on the completion of schemes in hand to the exclusion of new proposals which would occupy the time of the staff and which involve additional expenditure. Instructions in this sense have, I understand, been issued to the Small Holdings Commissioners. These, however, may be varied by the Director of Land Settlement at any time as occasion requires and permits.

Major WOOD: As this is likely to delay the settlement of ex-soldiers on the land, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that some sort of a statement might be made as a guidance to these ex-soldiers, so that they may know whether they are likely to get the land for which they have applied?

Mr. MUNRO: I am well aware of the critical nature of the situation, and I may tell my hon. and gallant Friend that the whole subject is now under survey by a Cabinet Committee.

Dr. MURRAY: 66.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the number of present applicants for small holdings in North Uist and South Uist, respectively; and what progress has been made in meeting these claims?

Mr. MUNRO: These applications in North Uist number 147 for new holdings and 223 for enlargements of existing holdings, and in South Uist 204 for new hold-
ings and 257 for enlargements. The Board of Agriculture for Scotland are not at present proceeding with any scheme in North Uist, but at Askernish, in South Uist, 11 new holdings and 7 enlargements will, it is hoped, be settled at the closing term of Martinmas.

Dr. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of these applicants are ex-service men who have been waiting since the Armistice, expecting small holdings to be granted to them, and is he aware of the present discontent and of the possible results during the winter if the small holdings are not granted?

Mr. MUNRO: I am well aware that a number, if not most, of the applicants are ex-service men. The Government is most anxious to meet their demands. This is a subject which is being discussed by a Cabinet Committee now.

Dr. MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that the applications in North Uist are not finally abandoned, and that they will come within the ambit of this inquiry?

Mr. MUNRO: I should be very sorry to say that they have been finally abandoned.

HOUSING.

BUILDING MATERIALS, SCOTLAND.

Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW: 42.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether there is any difficulty in obtaining the necessary wood, iron, and plumbing materials for the construction of the 16,000 houses in Scotland for which plans and tenders have been approved by the Scottish Board of Health?

Mr. MUNRO: I am advised that no difficulty is at present experienced in obtaining the necessary supplies of wood and iron required for the 16,000 houses referred to in the question. As regards plumbing material, the only existing scarcity is in respect of cast-iron rainwater conductors. This is being reduced by the use of galvanised steel.

Mr. SHAW: 43.
asked the Secretary for Scotland the present amount of cement which can be obtained weekly for house construction in Scotland; and how many houses this weekly supply would enable to be constructed in a year?

Mr. MUNRO: I am advised that the present amount of cement obtainable weekly for house construction in Scotland varies from 300 to 400 tons. This amount is sufficient to enable approximately 2,300 houses to be constructed in a year.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether it is adequate for the construction of the houses which have been authorised during the year?

Mr. MUNRO: I am not sure that I can give an accurate answer to a question like that, but I should like to see more cement.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shortage of houses in Scotland, as compared with the number required to be erected, is 10,000, and that the amount of cement available meets but a very small portion of that demand; and is he also aware that, if cement were more plentiful, and cement blocks could be substituted for bricks or stone, houses could be erected in Scotland very much more quickly?

Mr. MUNRO: My hon. Friend is an authority on that subject, I know, and I shall be very happy to confer with him upon it. In the meantime, the whole matter is engaging the attention of the Minister of Health and myself.

Mr. M. SCOTT: Does not this show that it is not entirely shortage of labour which is preventing the erection of houses in Scotland?

Mr. MUNRO: I never said that that was the sole cause, but I think it is a very material cause.

Captain TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if the "Pussyfoot" movement be successful in Scotland, there will be a large number of houses vacant?

Sir J. HOPE: 44.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Department of Building Materials Supply in Scotland is entirely under the control of the Scottish Board of Health and no other Government office?

Mr. MUNRO: The Department of Building Materials Supply is under the control of the Ministry of Health.

Sir J. HOPE: 60.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Scottish Board
of Health can order building materials direct from private firms in England, or whetner the approval of some other Government Departments has first to be obtained?

Mr. MUNRO: The ordering of building materials from private firms, whether in England or Scotland, falls within the province of the Director of Building Materials Supply, not of the Scottish Board of Health. The Board have power, however, to authorise local authorities to purchase building material not immediately obtainable from the Building Materials Supply Department from private firms either in Scotland or England.

Sir J. HOPE: Am I to understand that the supply of building material in Scotland is entirely under the control of the English Ministry of Health and does the right hon. Gentleman not think the Ministry of Health in Scotland should also have control of the supply of building material?

Mr. MUNRO: I said it was under the control of the Director of Building Materials Supply. The whole situation in regard to that matter is under consideration by the Minister of Health and myself now.

TERMINATION OF WAH (DATE).

Mr. CLOUGH: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make any statement as to the date upon which the duration of the War will be officially announced as ending?

Mr. B0NAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on Wednesday last to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardine and Western.

INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT.

Mr. CLOUGH: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the suggested investigation of output in the mines, he will extend his inquiry to the means of increasing output in the various other staple industries of the country?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As was stated in the House on the 20th October, the whole problem of increased production in industry is receiving the constant attention of the Government. It is greatly to be hoped that the joint bodies of employers and workpeople which exist in most of the principal industries of this country will follow the example which is being set in the coal trade and will give their attention to the urgent need for securing the greatest possible production.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

ANGLO-JAPANESE TREATY.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether any reply has been received from the Council of the League of Nations to the joint representations of the, British and Japanese, Governments regarding the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of Alliance?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When will the Treaty be laid before the House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, it has first to fee sent to the League of Nations.

EX-SERVICE MEN.

OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.

Mr. A. HERBERT: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of certainty with regard to the future, a statement will be made as to how long the out-of-work donation is to be continued to ex-service men?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I have been asked to reply. This matter is now under consideration, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement in a day or two. I should add that the question of an extension only applies to those men who have exhausted their original 12 months' policies. The rights of those men who are still within the; period of 12 months from the date of discharge will, of course, continue unchanged.

EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.

Mr. G. TERRELL: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the number of cases in which applications were made to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to allow payment of Excess Profits Duty to be made by instalments and the number of cases in which the applications were granted in the six months ending 30th September, 1919, and in the six months ending 30th September, 1920, respectively, and the number of cases which are now in arrear?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): No tabulation has been made of the cases to which my hon. Friend refers; and, in view of the time and labour involved, I cannot undertake to obtain it.

Mr. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, and give some approximate figure as to the number of cases now in arrear?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Mr. TERRELL: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amount of the claims which he has received for refund of Excess Profits Duty?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Many of the claims made are disposed of locally without being brought before the Commissioners. I am therefore unable to give the total, but the actual amount repaid between 1st April, 1920, and 26th October, 1920, is £0,300,385.

Mr. TERRELL: Is there any truth in the report that those claims for refund amount to something like £100,000,000?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know what the claims amount to because, as I have said, most of them are settled locally, the Revenue officials being able to convince the gentlemen who have made them that their claims are unfounded and that no repayment is due. Those claims never come before the Inland Revenue. What I am able to tell the hon. Member is the actual amount of the payments made.

Mr. TERRELL: Is it not a fact that some particulars of these claims must roach the Treasury to enable them to form their estimates, and can the right hon. Gentleman give any information on this
matter, which is of such vital importance at the moment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, it is not necessary that the Treasury or the Inland Revenue should receive notice of unproved or disproved claims, and therefore I cannot give my hon. Friend the total of the claims made.

Captain R. TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Excess Profits Duty is killing the trade of the country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I am not aware of that. I know there is a disposition on the part of critics to attribute every misfortune to these duties, but between the attribution and the proof of the allegation there is a great gulf fixed.

Dr. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we were told yesterday that it was the dumping of foreign goods that was killing trade?

NATIONAL WEALTH INCOME.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reconsider his decision, and invite his Department to prepare, to the best of their ability, a statement showing approximately the wealth and income of the country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I fear I can only repeat that in my opinion no estimate of the present national income of the United Kingdom is sufficiently trustworthy to justify me in adopting it officially.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSDN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the United States Government periodically publish official statistics of the income of the United States, and if they can do it in that country why cannot we do it here?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no desire to criticise the action of another Government. I am responsible only for the estimates for which I make myself responsible, and I am not prepared to make myself responsible for an official estimate of the income of this country. [H0N. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because those who are best qualified to make such estimates vary immensely in the estimates which they do make.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to call in such men as Mr. Edgar Orammond and other expert statisticians, and allow the country itself to come to some estimate from their varying estimates, so that we might know what the income and outgoings of the country are?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not necessary for me to call these gentlemen in. They make their own estimates, which are public property.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Considering the great importance of this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman see his way to appoint a small Committee of Member of the House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does my hon. Friend really think he or I or other Members of the House are competent to make estimates of this nature?

BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the initial claim by the British South Africa Company of £8,000,000 sterling from the Crown; whether he is aware that the elected members of the legislative council of Southern Rhodesia have now unanimously passed a resolution, and communicated this to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, repudiating any liability whatever for these debts, amounting to several millions sterling; and whether he is prepared to give an assurance that these deficits of the chartered company will not be allowed to fall upon the British taxpayer?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieutenant-Colonel Amery): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A meeting of elected members by 10 votes to 1 resolved that the award on the company's claim does not concern the people of Southern Rhodesia. With regard to the last part, I would refer to my reply to the right hon. Member for Camborne on 26th November last.

Mr. ORMSBY-G0RE: Is it not the decision of the judicial authority of the Privy Council that the British Crown is liable for these payments?

Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: It is not for me to interpret the decision of the Privy Council. I understand their decision was that the Chartered Company were acting as agents of the Crown in the administration of Rhodesia.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION EM PLOYES (INCOME TAX).

Mr. T. WILSON: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, he has been made aware of the request from the Liverpool Corporation employés that as taxpayers they should be placed on a similar footing to other citizens, to be assessed by the local surveyor of taxes, to enable them to obtain a notice of assessment and an account showing the sum due and a receipt for the amount paid to the collector; whether London and Liverpool are the only places in Great Britain where tax is deducted from employés' salaries; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the request to which the hon. Member refers. Income Tax is deducted from employés' salaries in large classes of cases, apart from those mentioned in the question, for example, members of the forces of the Crown, Civil Servants, railway officials The Royal Commission on the Income Tax have made recommendations for the transfer of the duty of assessing employés under Schedule E. to the Inspectors of Taxes as the hon. Member suggests, and the matter will be fully considered in connection with further proposals to be submitted to the House to give effect to changes in the Income Tax law recommended by the Royal Commission.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Mr. GRANT: 67.
asked the Postmaster-General how many Applications for installation of telephones have been made to the Post Office since the Armistice, and what proportion of these applications are still undealt with?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): Up to the 30th September, 168,000 applications had been received since the Armistice. Of this total, 126,500 installations had been completed, 7,000 were in course of construction, and 34,500 remained to be dealt with.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it the case that several applications have been outstanding for over five years?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: If there are any such cases, I should be much obliged if the hon. Member would tell me of them.

Sir W. DAVISON: It was so stated in the Press.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

SUGAR.

Mr. SWAN: 70.
asked the Minister of Food what is the weekly consumption of sugar in the United Kingdom; what is the estimated quantity now in this country; how much of it is still under the control of the Sugar Commission; and what was the average cost per pound?

The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): In reply to the first part of the question, the average consumption of sugar imported by the Government is at present about 21,000 tons per week. This does not include British colonial sugar or sugar for the use of brewers, with which the Government does not deal. In reply to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statistics compiled by His Majesty's Customs and Excise, which show that on 1st October the total quantity of sugar in bond in the United Kingdom was 328,950 tons. Of this total, 240,684 tons belonged to the Sugar Commission. As regards the remaining part of the question, the labour involved in calculating the average cost of specific parcels of sugar remaining in stock on any given date is not, in my opinion, justified, but I may say that the average cost of existing stocks of sugar purchased by the Sugar Commission is slightly in excess of the price at which the Commission is selling to-day, in conformity with its principle of adjusting its selling price to the ruling world price.

Mr. W. THORNE: In view of the large amount of sugar in stock, can the Minister of Food see his way to increase the ration per head?

Mr. McCURDY: I am at the moment taking steps towards that end.

Mr. PERCY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that just before the coal strike controlled sugar was selling at 1s. 2d.
per 1b., while uncontrolled pure cane sugar was selling at 10d. per lb., a difference of 4d. per lb.?

Mr. McCURDY: I am not quite clear to what grade of sugar the hon. Member's question refers. If he will communicate with me, I shall be glad to go into the matter.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what stock he now holds compared with the normal stocks?

Mr. McCURDY: I must ask for notice of that question.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE BILL.

As amended (in the. Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Landlord and Tenant Act, 1851.)

Where, the tenancy of a holding determines in the circumstances mentioned in Section one of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1851. the tenant shall, instead of continuing in occupation as provided by that section until the expiration of the then current year of his tenancy, continue in occupation until the occupation is determined by a twelve months' notice to quit expiring at the end of a year of the tenancy.—[Sir A. Boscawen.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.0 P.M.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is intended to deal mainly with vacant tenancies under incumbrances. As the law stands at present, an incumbent, except with certain consents which are rarely obtained, cannot treat for a lease for more than the duration of his incumbency. The effect of the Landlord and Tenant Act, which I propose to amend by this new Clause, is that a tenant of a farm under glebe may continue in occupation until the expiration of the then current year of the tenancy, on which date he has to leave without receiving notice to quit. This puts the tenant of glebe land in a very disadvantageous position compared with the ordinary tenant under the usual landlord. He does not get the ordinary notice to quit, which is a hardship, and, so far as this Bill is concerned, he would not get compensation for disturbance under Clause 7, because that Clause enacts that compensation for disturbance shall be paid only when a tenancy is terminated by notice to quit, and no notice to quit takes place under the present law. Under this new Clause the tenant of a farm under an incumbent will, notwithstanding the termination of the incumbent's interest, continue in occupation until his tenancy is determined by notice to quit in the ordinary fashion. That will give him certain advantages under the present
law, and will bring his case within the terms of Clause 7 of this Bill. I have put this Clause down, because in the Committee stage it was pointed out to me that the tenant of an incumbent was in a disadvantageous position, and that there was no reason why this should be the case. I was asked between the Committee stage and the Report stage to consider the matter and see whether I could not introduce some Amendment of the Landlord and Tenant Act which would give the tenant of an incumbent the advantages of the existing law and also of this Bill. Accordingly, I have put down this new Clause, and I may say that the effect of the alteration will be practically to put an incumbent in the same position in this respect as a tenant for life of settled lands. The Clause will remedy an injustice which would press hardly on a small number of tenants, and I hope, therefore, that the House will accept it.

Mr. ACLAND: I would like to support the speech of the Minister in charge of the Hill, and I hope that the House will be willing to accept this new Clause. After all, we are changing the balance in these matters and giving more security to tenants. There does not seem any sufficient reason why tenants of glebe land should be in a distinctly less favourable position with regard to notice, to quit than tenants under ordinary landlords. We used to look on these things from the point of view of the convenience of the landlord, and to think rather little about tenants, but the whole object of this Bill is to give greater security, so that the efforts of all cultivators may be encouraged in the interests of food production, and there seems to be a good case made out for applying that principle to tenants of glebe land as well as to ordinary tenants.

Sir F. BANBURY: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that when the tenant of the glebe land took his farm he knew perfectly well that he was taking it under those conditions. He took it with his eyes open. Therefore, it is now proposed to give an advantage to the tenant at the expense of the incumbent.

Mr. ACLAND: No.

Sir F. BANBURY: Certainly, because the incumbent will have to pay the heavy
compensation which is enacted under Clause 7 of this Bill. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary how the incumbent, who in eight cases out of ten is a poor man, is going to pay the very large compensation which is enacted under Clause 7. It seems to me that the insertion of this new Clause is a very strong argument against Clause 7, because it shows that an attempt would be made to bring in all sorts of tenants to receive compensation. In this case, at any rate, the unfortunate person will be utterly unable to pay the compensation. I should like to have some indication how the right hon. Gentleman proposes that the incumbent shall moot these charges. We are told every, day, with a great deal of truth, that the clergyman is in a worse position than the labourer. That may be slightly exaggerated, though I do not think so when you consider the fact that the clergyman has to dress better and incur many expenses which do not fall upon the labourer. In these circumstances, how can he pay this compensation? Supposing the glebe land be let at £250—probably that is the whole of his income—something has to be deducted for repairs, Income Tax, etc., and it may be that the man, who at the very outside is receiving something like £200 a year, will have to pay £l,000 in compensation. I really do not think that the Board of Agriculture can have thoroughly understood the effect of this Clause, and, in view of the fact that the tenant, when he took the farm, knew perfectly well that he took it under circumstances somewhat different from those which would have resulted if he had taken it under an ordinary landlord, I think to impose a further burden of this sort upon the clergyman is wrong. I sincerely trust, therefore, that there is going to be some method of finding this compensation so that it will not fall upon the clergy. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture will give way when he considers the enormous burden that he is putting on a very unfortunate class.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I would point out to the last speaker that the compensation he refers to as payable under Clause 7 is payable only in case he gave a tenant notice to quit.

Sir F. BANBURY: It is a very complicated Bill, but as I read it, suppose that a tenant of glebe land says he wants, to have his land arbitrated upon, and suppose the clergyman says he will not have it arbitrated upon, then the tenant can give notice to quit and it shall be considered as notice given by the landlord. Then follows the four years' compensation.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: The Act of Parliament of 1851 was not passed without good and sufficient reason. We are considering now the case on the death of an incumbent or a change of incumbency and a new person coming there altogether. The late incumbent may have let the-whole of the glebe land, including the land immediately around the house. The new incumbent is incapable of getting rid of that old tenant without paying compensation. There may be some inconvenience and hardship on the tenant, but on the other hand it would be a real hardship on a new incumbent requiring possession of his land or some part of it if he was not able to get possession without payment of a heavy penalty. There may be occasional cases of hardship on a tenant, but in my experience I have not heard of any serious complaint in that regard.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I feel that it would be hard to put the tenant of a glebe in a different position from that of any other tenant. They must both be treated alike, and when the same thing applies to the clergyman he is in that regard the landlord. Therefore the real crux of this seems to turn, not so much on this new Clause as on making Clause 7 of the Bill an absolutely fair Clause, and bearing in mind that it is not only the tenant who has to be considered but in many cases the kind of landlord referred to here, namely, an incumbent whose means may be considerably less than those of the tenant. The effect of this Clause, as pointed out, is to put the tenant of a glebe in exactly the same position as the tenant of any privately owned land and to bring Clause 7 into operation. I will not take the extreme case of four years, but will take the case of one year, which is given in this Bill to a tenant even where the landlord takes over the land for purposes consistent with good estate management. For instance, taking it for allotments, which is the sort
of thing that a clergyman might desire to do in his parish. If he takes the land away from the tenant for allotments he has then to be fined a year's rent. What is worse, he has to pay the further and extremely indefinite compensation provided in Clause 7. I do not think it would be proper now to discuss what that may be, but anyone who looks at Clause 7 will see that it is very far-reaching and extremely indefinite. Such things as the difference in market price of stock and implements at the time they were bought and the price at which they may have to be sold when the tenant leaves, have no be taken into consideration. I think the attitude I should take on this is that I should assent to the putting of the tenant of a glebe into exactly the same position as the tenant of any other land, but I should say that when we come to Clause 7 we must bear in mind that this now Clause has been inserted. In so far as that burden is a necessary and fair liability there can be no reason why the tenant should not be entitled to compensation, or why the incumbent should not have to pay it, but the acceptance of this Clause does very considerably increase our responsibility to see that by Clause 7 there is not placed on the incumbents of rural parishes a greater burden than they are able to bear.

Lieut.-Colonel WILLOUGHBY: I think Clause 7 goes a very long way, and I do not know that I shall be ready to support it in all its details. It is an accepted fact now that clergymen in country districts are hard hit, and the fact that clergymen may be in a minority is no reason why the House should pass this Clause. I shall certainly vote against it, although I should be only too glad to give tenant farmers their rights. As has been said, they have taken the glebe land, knowing that there is attached to the tenancy a special condition. I feel that this Clause ought not to be added to the Bill at this moment. Proper notice ought to be given, so that incumbents could know their position in future.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I want to know exactly what the facts are. What is the Amendment going to do? If it be true, as has been stated, that without this Amendment Clause 7 will not be applicable to glebe land under any circumstances, then undoubtedly this is a very
large change to make in the Bill. I am, however, not sure on the point. Reading the Amendment as well as I can, I should think that the effect is to get rid of the present position on the change of incumbency, namely, to require notice in exactly the same way on a change of incumbency as during the continuance of an incumbency. If I am right in that, it is a much smaller point than some hon. Members have thought, because it would apply only to cases where there is a change of incumbency.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I think it would have been better if the Parliamentary Secretary had been fortified with the presence of one of the Law Officers, for I wish to raise a legal point as to the position of landlord and tenant. I want to know whether this new Clause will cover only cases of the tenancies of glebe land. The Clause as it is drawn deals with the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1851. It is, in fact, an Amendment of that Act. My recollection of that Act is that it provided that all occupiers of land in which the then owner had a limited interest were protected from the harsh effects of the Common Law. The effect of the Common Law was in such cases that on the cases or determination of the limited interest the tenancy ceased ipso facto, but there was by Common Law a right to some small compensation for being deprived of the tenancy called the right to emblements. The Act of 1851 provided that in lieu of the Common Law taking effect and the tenancy coming to an end on any cesser of that limited interest, the tenancy should continue until the end of the current year of the tenancy. What I want to know is, whether this new Clause deals with all other tenancies where the then owner is only a limited owner or whether it deals only with the cases of glebe land. If it deals only with glebe land, why is it put in this cumbersome, way by an Amendment of the Act of 1851? If the right hon. Gentleman says it applies to the tenancies of all limited, owners, by what Act of Parliament was their position made different? In other words, where the life tenant dies and his life interest comes to an end and the reversioner comes into possession, does the latter in all cases take over the existing tenancies? Take another case. Where a man has only a lease of land and he has granted an under-lease, does the under-1
lease come to an end at the end of the original lease, or does the tenancy continue, and is the reversioner of the lease bound to take over the tenancy? If that is so, if those tenancies do continue, of course the tenants get the benefit of this Act, but if they do not, it seems to me that they would be in a very peculiar position.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I regret that the Solicitor-General is not present. He has been detained, and I hope he will be here very shortly. I will endeavour, as far as I am able, to answer some of the technical questions put to me. With regard to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), and also by the Noble Lord (Lord It. Cecil), I think they do not realise that this compensation for disturbance only arises when there is notice to quit. If an incumbent who has let his glebe to a tenant gives notice to quit during his incumbency, Clause 7 would apply. But if the incumbent resigns or dies, what happens is that the tenancy goes on for six months and then automatically determines without any notice to quit. The sole effect therefore of this Amendment is to make it necessary to give a notice to quit and in that case bringing in the provisions of Clause 7.

Mr. AC LAND: Only if you want to get rid of the tenant.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Only if you want to get rid of the tenant. What would happen would be this. An incumbent resigns and his successor is appointed. The successor, for reasons good or bad, desires to get rid of the tenant. Under the law as it stands the tenant would go automatically after six months. Under my new Clause it would be necessary for the new incumbent to give ordinary notice and then, notice to quit having been given, he would have to pay for disturbance under Clause 7. If the notice to quit were given in accordance with good estate management, there would be the smaller form of compensation, and if it were deemed to be capricious there would be the larger form of compensation. That would depend entirely on the circumstances under which the notice to quit was given. The Clause merely deals with that point of view. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr.
Cautley), I am advised that this merely deals with the question of glebe land and incumbents, and does not raise the other points he has mentioned. The general effect of this new Clause will be to place the incumbent in this respect in precisely the same position as a tenant for life on settled land. I cannot see any new or heavy burdens or injustice which this will put on the incumbent, and I think the House will acquit me of being likely to desire to do that. We have got to look at the matter from the broad point of view of justice to the tenant, and from the broad point of view of food production and national interest. I cannot see myself why there should be this distinction drawn in the case of tenants under incumbents as distinguished from tenants under ordinary landlords. I think that would be an injustice to the tenant. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City said that those tenants Knew the conditions under which they held their tenancy when they took it, hut I would remind him that this Bill is largely altering the conditions, not merely for them, but for all other tenants I cannot think, therefore, that that is really a sound argument having regard to the proposals as a whole. With regard to the attitude taken by the right, hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), I am not now going to express any opinion on Clause 7. When we reach that Clause the House will have the opportunity to amend it. At the present moment the proposal is that the tenants of incumbents should have the same rights and the same claim to notice to quit and the same right to compensation as the tenant of an ordinary landlord. We think that that is an eminently reasonable proposal, and I hope that the House, without further discussion, will agree to the Clause.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: Suppose a new incumbent comes in and has to give notice to quit to obtain possession of any portion of the glebe, is it the intention that notice to quit given under those conditions must necessarily be regarded as capricious, and render him liable to pay four years' compensation?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Certainly not. The question whether it is capricious or not depends on the decision of the arbitrator, but apart from that if the hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 7 he will
see that there are special exceptions in the case where part of a holding is resumed by a landlord.
Question put, and agreed to.
Proposed Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the next Clause (Compensation for Disturbance in case of allotment gardens), of which notice has been given by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen), we cannot take that Clause on Report because it imposes a charge. Under its provisions the local authority would be called on to pay compensation, and in order to do so they would have to levy a rate which would impose an addition to the rating.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I bow, of course, Sir, to your ruling, and I realise that this, Clause cannot be moved at this stage, but I should like to ask whether it would be in order to re-commit the Bill in respect of this Clause, so that it could be moved in Committee?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, provided that the Clause comes within the Money Resolution of the House. I have not looked into that question. The next Clause of which notice has been given (Application of Act) is out of order, as it is incompatible with Clause 27.

Lieut.-Commander KENWQRTHY: On that point of Order. May I point out that the Bill guarantees the price of wheat and oats, and I was going to refer to the fact that under Clause 27 the Bill only applies to Ireland in practice as regards guaranteed prices. I propose to argue that we were ill-advised to commit ourselves to guarantee prices of wheat and oats in Ireland for an indefinite period. May I put it that this would be the most convenient way for the House to deal with the matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think so. If this Clause providing that the Bill shall not apply to Ireland were added to the Bill, we would then have another Clause which says that the Bill shall apply to Ireland. These two statements are incompatible, and one or other must stand. Clause 27 provides that the Bill shall apply to Ireland, and when we reach
that Clause then is the time for the hon. Member to move an Amendment.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Compensation to tenants.)

(1)Where any sum is duo to the tenant of a holding by way of compensation or otherwise under the Act of 1908, and the landlord neglects or fails to pay that sum to the tenant within one month after the amount has become due, the tenant shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be entitled to obtain from the Minister a first charge on the holding to the amount of the sum so due and of all costs properly incurred by him in obtaining the charge.

Provided that the foregoing provision shall not apply in the case of a sum due by way of compensation for disturbance and payable by a person who ceased to be the landlord of the holding before the termination of the tenancy.

(2) Any charge under this Section shall he made in like manner as charges under the Act of 1908.

(3) Any charge made by the Minister under the Act of 1908 may contain such provision as the Minister may think necessary or desirable for adjusting as between the several persons interested in the holding the liability for the discharge of the amount charged and for the payment of interest thereon. — [Lieut. - Colonel A. Murray.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In Committee this Clause which originally stood in the Bill was negatived without Debate. Some of my hon. Friends and myself have since given some consideration to the matter and we desire to move the Clause again. We contend that the protection afforded by this Clause to the tenant against loss on the failure of the landlord to pay the tenant's claim should be restored. So far as I can see, if a landlord went bankrupt unless some such Clause were in the Bill the tenant would have no real means of obtaining the compensation which was his due.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to second the Motion.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I regret I cannot accept this new Clause, which was Clause 17 in the original Bill. It was put there largely because there was a recommendation in favour of such a proposal, but on considering the whole matter and going into it very carefully with my advisers I found, as I stated to the Committee, that the practical difficulties which would arise far outweighed any difficulty that was likely to accrue from the Clause. If
you are going to make a general law that a sum of money like this for compensation is to be a first charge on the man it would make it a very difficult thing, and in many case practically impossible, to raise mortgages on land. Difficulties of that sort would arise and have to be taken into account. Those difficulties might have a very prejudicial effect on estate management and generally on good cultivation. If the compensation which is to be made the first charge represented solely improvements, there might be something to be said for it, though even there the difficulties would be very great, but it must be remembered that this new Clause would cover also compensation for disturbance which represents no increase in the value of the land, and which in the case of capricious eviction might amount to a very large sum. Therefore I really do not think I could agree to reinsert the Clause which was dropped with general consent in Committee. The case which the hon. Member is trying to guard against is a very remote danger. The Ministry of Agriculture has searched its records and can only discover one single case brought to its notice a good many years ago, in which the landlord became bankrupt after the tenancy determined and the tenant failed to obtain his compensation. In view of the fact that the danger is so remote and that cases are likely to be very infrequent, and owing to the disadvantages from the point of view of estate management, I think I am right in saying that the disadvantages greatly outweigh the advantages, and I cannot see my way to accept the Clause.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Incoming tenant's claim for compensation.)

Any agreement between a landlord and an incoming tenant providing that the incoming tenant shall pay au outgoing tenant's claim for compensation under this Act or under the Act of 1908 shall not be enforceable so far as it relates to such payment.—[Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a Clause of some importance. In Committee I moved a Clause in very
similar words to that which I am now moving, providing that it would not be lawful for the landlord to transfer to the incoming tenant any claim for compensation to the outgoing tenant. My recollection is that the Government were good enough to say that they would consider this matter on Report, and it was in view of that I placed the Clause on the Paper. It is really self-explanatory. It would remedy any existing evil of an incoming tenant being saddled with the claim which the Act intended the landlord to bear. I submit it is a wholly reasonable addition to the Bill. If it were possible for a landlord to get an incoming tenant to bear the claim the whole case on which this Bill is founded, for maintaining the increased compensation to give greater security, falls to the ground. I venture, therefore, to suggest this Clause to the House, and in doing so to tell the right hon. Gentleman that we on this side lay great stress upon it.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to second the Motion.
The Clause does not in any way alter the compensation which would have to be paid in such a case. The difficulty that it is meant to remedy is this. Very often when a tenant goes out and a new one comes in, the incoming tenant undertakes to pay all the compensation in respect of improvements that the landlord would have to pay to the outgoing tenant. That unfortunately cannot be determined at the time the outgoing tenant leaves the farm, but it has to be paid, and in some cases it amounts to several hundred pounds. The incoming tenant, if he is made to agree to take on this burden, is taking on a burden the amount of which he does not and cannot know. It is unfair, therefore, that he should be put into such a position, and we suggest by this Clause that the payment of the compensation should be a matter entirely for the landlord and the outgoing tenant. If that is done, the incoming tenant can make an agreement with the landlord to pay a proper rent, which, if he likes, can take account of that; but. if he does that, the incoming tenant will know exactly how much he is committed to, and there would be no danger of such things happening as I have indicated, and which, I am assured, do very often happen in cases of this, kind.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is quite true that we had some conversation about this proposal in Committee, and I made certain statements, but my statements did not commit me, very much. This is what I said:
If the Amendment be withdrawn, we will look into the matter.
Well, I have looked into the matter, and I have taken advice from those who are better able to form a judgment on this matter than I am, and having looked into the matter, I have come to the conclusion that we were perfectly right in resisting the Amendment in Committee. I propose, therefore, to resist it again now. I have tried very hard and very honestly to ascertain what the hon. and gallant Member really wants and why he wants it: but I cannot see in what way any harm is done by such an arrangement as this being permitted. A considerable proportion of the compensation payable in each case is for temporary improvements, such as manure, temporary pasture, and so on, the whole benefit of which may reasonably be expected to be derived by the incoming tenant, and why, therefore, the, incoming tenant should not be allowed to enter into an agreement of this sort to pay the outgoer I cannot for the life of me understand. Why not? Then with regard to permanent improvements, such as buildings, no doubt in those cases the incoming tenant does not enter into an agreement to pay the outgoer, but if the landlord and the tenant think fit to enter into such an arrangement, I cannot see any reason in that case why it should not be permitted. If the incoming tenant under any such arrangement pays compensation to the outgoing tenant in respect of improvements, he becomes entitled under Section 7 of the Act of 1908 to claim compensation in respect of improvements when he quits exactly in same way as if he had executed the improvements, and therefore his position is in no way damnified by his entering into this agreement, and as this agreement is very often a very convenient one and saves a good deal of trouble, and may save expense and time, and as the tenant is put in no worse a position what ever by entering into it, it seems to me very unnecessary that we should forbid such an arrangement in the future. For those reasons I hope the House will not accept the new Clause.

Mr. JAMES GARDINER: I wish to support the Clause in a sentence or two. I do not think it is calculated to injure the landlord, and in my opinion it would considerably help the incoming tenant. We want to encourage men who are not possessed of too large fortunes to go in for farming. Take a man who occupies the position of a foreman or farm manager, and who has not too much capital. In my opinion, if the incoming tenant has to pay compensation it would deter any such men from becoming tenant farmers. When a man is asked to become a tenant farmer, it is quite true that he shall take into consideration all the facts that relate to the tenancy. If he has got to pay £500, or some such sum by way of compensation, he offers a smaller rent in order that he may be able to pay the sum, and if he does not pay the compensation he pays a bigger rent. The only difference, it seems to me, is that the landlord receives in annual increments the amount that is represented by the compensation, and it enables a poor man to become a farmer, and possibly a prosperous farmer, because very often these men are the best class of farmers we have in the country; and with the increased value of stock and implements such men will practically be put out of the possibility of farming unless some such Amendment as this is agreed to.

Sir HARRY HOPE: This raises a matter of considerable importance. By the Act of 1908 compensation is awarded to an outgoing tenant for improvements which are of value to the holding and to the incoming tenant, and hitherto it has been permissible, and I think rightly so, for the landlord to pass on the payment for that improvement to the man who becomes liable to reap the benefit of it, namely, the incoming tenant, but by this Bill, under Clause 7, a new state of affairs arises. There are now going to be large amounts of money payable for compensation for disturbance, which in no way increases the value of the holding to the incoming tenant or to anybody else, and therefore one has to consider whether there should not be a new view taken of the passing on of the payment of compensation to the incoming tenant. In Committee I was opposed to a great deal of this large compensation for disturbance, but I think when we see that the passing on of a heavy claim for compensa-
tion for disturbance to the incoming tenant is going to have the effect of putting a burden upon a new man going into the industry, we are bound to recognise that it is a cumbrous method of obtaining security of tenure. Therefore, I think when this Clause is proposed, if we look at the matter dispassionately, neither from a tenant's nor a landlord's point of view, but from the point of view of the industry and how the land is going to be worked better in the future, we are bound to recognise that the passing on of these heavy compensation claims for disturbance to the incoming tenant is going to bind a burden on these latter which will have a serious effect upon new men coming into the industry in future-Therefore I think it is not quite sufficient to say, "No" to this new Clause, and I think there is a good deal in it which can be supported. If the hon. and gallant Member who moved it could have curtailed his Clause to refer merely to the claims for improvements which are of benefit to the incoming tenant, I think they might be passed on to him, but I think the compensation for disturbance is not right to be passed on to the incoming tenant, and I should like to see the proposal altered so that claims for compensation for disturbance only should not be passed on.

Captain D. BROWN: I represent a North of England constituency, and I have been to a good deal of trouble to ascertain the views of farmers in my constituency in regard to this Bill, and this is the great complaint I have found. They state that they do not see how new men are able to do farming if they are going to pay the amounts required to restock the farm and pay these lump sums which the landlord sometimes demands of them, and it seems to me that the time has come when something should be done to meet this point of view. Presumably, the landlord would have banking facilities which the farmer would not have, and in fairness, therefore, I do not think these heavy charges should be put upon the incoming tenant. If the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Clause takes it to a Division, I must support it.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I am very interested in this discussion, because I think it is about the first time in my connection with this House that I have ever heard such
an interest taken in the incoming tenant. The complaint made against the House of Commons always is that they take a great interest in the outgoing tenant but none in the incoming tenant, and now we have the interest taken in the incoming tenant, but I am bound to say that it throws a little daylight on the way Clause 7 will act, because every speaker so far has recognised that Clause 7 is going to throw a heavy burden on to somebody. All this discussion has been as to who should bear it, but I would point out that whoever bears it, landlord or tenant, the industry has got to bear it, and surely what we ought to try to do is to relieve the industry, and to try to make it easier to get capital into the industry in any form. Here we have another thing which people who are dealing with land, whether as landlords or as tenants, value very much, and that is their independence or freedom of action; but here is a proposal which says that although a tenant may be a man of large means, and although his landlord may be a man of small means, such as an incumbent, that where a tenant can find the money and is willing to find it, and the landlord cannot find the money, then it is to be forbidden by law for them to make an arrangement which may be satisfactory to both. I do most strongly protest against imposing burdens upon industry. Then, the whole trouble is, who is to bear them? I only rise to support my right hon. Friend in opposing this, because I am sure it is against the interests of the whole industry. Supposing it is true, though I am not sure it is true now, and I think it is very doubtful in the future, that the landlords will be better able to bear a burden of this kind than the tenant, but admitting that in the majority of cases it is so, why in the minority of cases, where it is not so, should the tenant be forbidden to enter into this agreement. I very much hope my right hon. Friend will adhere to his Resolution.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I hope the House will not be led away by the speeches made by the hon. Members from Scotland, for I am perfectly certain the acceptance of this Clause would add very considerably to the cost to be borne both by the outgoing and the incoming tenant. What is the present position? Under the law as it stands today, the landlord is responsible to the outgoing tenant for compensation for his
improvements. When he lets his land to the incoming tenant, what he says to the incoming tenant is this: "These improvements, for which I am liable, are for the benefit of the land. You will reap the benefit of these improvements, and when you go out you will be compensated exactly on the same footing. It will be to your advantage, as well as to mine, to have only one set of costs; therefore, we will agree that you shall be bound by the valuation that will be made between the landlord and the outgoing tenant. But, further than that, as you are going to pay, I will agree that your valuer shall act on behalf of both landlord and incoming tenant, and, therefore, there will be only one valuation." And, as a matter of fact, there is only one valuation, that made between the outgoing tenant and the incoming tenant, whereby the incoming tenant gets this further advantage, and the landlord also gets the advantage, in that the incoming tenant is more likely to be careful that too great a valuation is not paid to the outgoing tenant. But the real benefit is that only one valuation takes place.
Now it is suggested that a heavy fine may possibly be put upon the landlord because of some notice to quit he has given being improper. Obviously the

arrangement will be made, when the incoming tenant takes his farm, that he will not agree to pay such compensation as is awarded for wrongful restraint. I have known such agreements made, and when the House remembers that the agreement for letting a farm is made some time before these valuations are made, the general agreement will be made like this: "I will agree to pay such compensation as is awarded for improvements, and not excluding any claim that may be awarded in respect of any claim for compensation for disturbance." I cannot understand why it should be suggested that a landlord can pass on such a liability as that for compensation for wrongful disturbance, and because of removal under the provisions of this Bill. If it is so, possibly he will be in a position to demand a premium from a tenant for going in, and no tenant will pay such a premium if the premium is high, or will agree to pay a premium of an indefinite character of which he has no means of judging the amount. I hope this proposal will not be accepted, and I strongly support the Minister.

Question put, "That the Clause be lead a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 61;, Noes, 236.

Division No. 346.]
AYES.
[5.6 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Sitch, Charles H.


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Smith, W. A. (Wellingborough)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hinds, John
Swan, J. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Taylor, J.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hogge, James Myles
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Briant, Frank
Irving, Dan
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Johnstone, Joseph
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tootill, Robert


Cairns, John
Kenyan, Barnet
Waterson, A. E.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lawson, John J.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lunn, William
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Mills, John Edmund
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E)


Davison. J. E. (Smethwick)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Myers, Thomas
Wintringham, T.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Parry. Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Rendall, Atheistan



Gardiner, James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprinq)
 TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Glanville, Harold James
Roberts, Frederick D. (W. Bromwich)
Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray and Major


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Scott. A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Mackenzie Wood.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Sexton, James



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Barnett, Major R. W.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Barnston, Major Harry
Bethell, Sir John Henry


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Barrand, A. R.
Betterton, Henry B.


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Barrie, Rt Hon. H.T. (Lon'derry,.N.)
Bigland, Alfred


Atkey, A. R.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Birchall, Major J. Dearman


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Blair, Reginald


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon w.
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood
Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W,


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Bridgeman, William Clive


Briggs, Harold
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Purchase, H. G.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rae, H. Norman


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hotchkln, Captain Stafford Vere
Rankin, Captain James S.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Butcher, Sir John George
Hurd, Percy A.
Reid, D. D.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B,
Remer, J. R.


Carr, W. Theodore
Inskip, Thomas Walk r H.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Casey, T. W.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Cautley, Henry S.
Jephcott, A. R.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Jesson, C.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rodger, A. K.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Royden, Sir Thomas


Clough, Robert
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Colfox. Major Wm. Phillips
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lloyd, George Butler
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Lorden, John William
Seager, Sir William


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Simm, M. T.


Curzon, Commander Viscount
M Donald. Dr. Bouverle F. P.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Stanier, Captain Sir Seville


Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Stanton, Charles B.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Starkey, Captain John R.


Dennlss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Steel, Major s. Strang


Dixon, Captain Herbert
Macquisten, F. A.
Stephenson, Lieut-Colonel H. K.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Mallaby-Deeley, Harry
Stevens. Marshall


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Mallalieu, F. W.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Edge, Captain William
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Sugden, W. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Sutherland, Sir William


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Falcon, Captain Michael
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut-Col. J. T. C.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Fell, Sir Arthur
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Turton, E. R.


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Morrison, Hugh
Waddington, R.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Forrest, Walter
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Walton, J. (York, W.R., Don Valley)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Gange, E. Stanley
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Neal, Arthur
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Gardner, Ernest
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Whitla, Sir William


Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel John
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Williams. Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Grant, James A.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Nield, Sir Herbert
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Greer, Harry
Ormsby-Gore. Captain Hon. W.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Hamilton, Major c. G. C 
Parker, James
Wise, Frederick


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Pearce, Sir William
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Harris, Sir Henry Percy 
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Haslam, Lewis
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Percy, Charles
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Perring, William George
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Hlider, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pinkham, Lieut. Colonel Charles
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Hoare, Lieut-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.


Hood, Joseph
Pulley, Charles Thornton



Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

The following proposed new clause stood on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member of Wellingborough (Mr. Walter Smith) and other hon. Members:

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 5 of the Corn Production Act, 1917.)

Section five of the Act of 1917 shall have effect as though for Sub-section seven of that Section the following Sub-section had been substituted, namely:—
(7) In fixing minimum rates for time-work under this Section the Agricultural Wages Board shall secure for an able-bodied man a weekly wage of not less than fifty shillings.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Clause, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wellingborough, would probably—I think almost certainly—impose a charge on the Exchequer, in view of the, fact that the costs of production have increased, and that the guaranteed prices have also increased; therefore it is out of order.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of Act to Cottage on Holdings under Act of 1908.)

Where a dwelling-house forming part of a holding to which the Act of 1908 applies is occupied by a workman employed by the tenant of the holding in agriculture on the holding, whether it is so occupied under a contract of tenancy or not, the provisions of Section seven of this Act shall (subject as hereinafter provided and so far as the same are capable of application) apply as if the dwelling-house or garden were a holding and, where there is no contract of tenancy, as if the person allowing the dwelling-house to be so occupied were the landlord and the occupier were the tenant and the weekly rent were a sum equal to the difference between the rate of wages paid to the occupier and the rate of wages which would have been payable if the occupier had not the benefit of the occupation of the dwelling-house.

Provided that—

(1) compensation shall not be payable under this Section if notice to terminate the tenancy or occupation is given on account of the employment of the workman having been terminated by reason of his misconduct, and such reason shall be substituted for the reasons specified in Subsection (1) of the said Section; and
(2) Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section seven shall not apply; and
(3) where the tenancy or occupation of the workman is terminated by reason of a notice to quit given to the tenant of the holding and compensation for disturbance is recoverable by him from his landlord, the compensation payable under this Section to the workman by the tenant of the holding shall be recoverable by the tenant of the holding from the land lord as part of the compensation so recoverable.—[Mr. Royce.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. ROYCE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In moving this new Clause I hope to obtain the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. This Clause, if carried, will give the agricultural labourer now in a tied cottage at least a modified security. The Bill before us makes very ample provision for the security of the roof over the head of the tenant farmer, but unless a Clause such as I am now moving is inserted, the agricultural labourer, who has long suffered from very grave disabilities in occupying a tied cottage, will receive no recognition whatever in respect to this evil. I need not, I hope, point out to the House many of the disabilities under which the agricultural labourer lives who
occupies the tied cottage. He certainly does not enjoy that freedom which ought to be associated with a healthy peasantry on the land. To begin with, he is, in many parts of the country, subjected to only one week's notice. In the days before the scarcity of houses perhaps this could be remedied, in some measure, by his getting another house, but during this period of the scarcity of houses, this has become so very acute that the position of the man, especially of a man with a family, is brought very nearly to bondage, owing to the necessity of rendering himself subservient to anything his master may dictate; otherwise he may be thrown out upon the road.
Recent legislation has not improved his position. Under the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Act a farmer can appear before the County Committee, and a certificate from that Committee presented to a bench of magistrates—both of these bodies very largely consisting of agriculturists, and not of the labouring classes—as a rule readily gets consent to a man being removed from his house. He suffers these disabilities from the fact that he is denied very often the privileges that are accorded to an ordinary labourer living in a free house. The man is thus prevented often from taking piecework, seeing that his time is occupied in the duties on the farm, and consequently he in this connection works for a lower rate of wage. There are other serious matters. There is the question of his family. In the case where the farmer demands the labour of the labourer's wife, and she is not willing to give it, or wishes to give it elsewhere, an element of discord at once arises. The same applies to the family, who may wish to work away from the village. There is the objection on the part of the farmer who requires the labour of these boys on the farm. I do not blame the farmer in this matter, but I do say that the system is a very bad one, and tied cottages ought to be swept out of existence altogether.
We cannot do that, and this scarcity of houses is working much more evil. The position is not helped where, it may be, a class of farmer is buying up houses in the village and converting them into tied cottages. It is so serious a matter that a man must commit himself almost unconditionally to any terms his employer imposes, or run the risk of being thrown out on the road. I need not enlarge upon
the evils of the tied-house system. A free and independent peasantry cannot live in tied houses. I hope, and think, that I shall receive the sympathy of, certainly the agricultural Members in this House, as to this proposal, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will also accord the proposed Clause his sympathy. With much confidence, therefore, I bring this new Clause to the notice of the House, and trust it will receive Members' very serious and favourable consideration.

Mr. GEORGE EDWARDS: I beg to second the Motion.
I look upon this Bill as an honest attempt to deal with a great and important industry. Anyone who has studied that great industry must confess that for many years it has not been on such a satisfactory footing as it ought to be. In consequence of this a large number of acres have gone out of cultivation, and of the thousands of these left many have been badly cultivated, and are not pro ducing the food they ought to produce, and this we found to our disadvantage during the great War. I think we can trace the deterioration in the cultivation of the land—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): On the Report stage of a Bill, I would remind the hon. Gentleman, that we cannot discuss the Bill as a whole. That can be done on the Third Reading. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Member will deal specifically with the Amendment which he has seconded.

Mr. G. EDWARDS: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I will try to conform to the rules of the House. What I was about to say and what I want to say is this: that the privileges or rights we are extending to the tenant farmer ought, in proper measure, to be extended to the cottage holder—to the man who cultivates his small plot of land. What is due to the one is due to the other. The agricultural labourer is hired at present under a system which makes him almost a complete serf. During the last 20 or 30 years the short notice system has sprung into existence, and we have the labourer living to-day under what is known as the service system, whereby as soon as he leaves his employer, he is a trespasser in his cottage. The other system is a week's
short notice, or a month's notice. Under the new agricultural councils, if a farmer gets a certificate from the Council, and takes it to a Court of Law, however respectable the man concerned may be, he is liable to be turned out. I hold that a man ought to have his cottage and be able to cultivate his small plot of land of a quarter of an acre or under, for relatively to the amount of land he cultivates, he is the greatest food producer that we have in this country. I hope the Government will accept this new Clause. The most burning question with the workmen living in the villages is this short notice system under which they have been content to live. If the rules of the House admitted, I could enumerate numbers of hardships associated with the system. Men have been turned out of their cottages on to the roads. I myself had to walk 12 miles a day to keep a job as an agricultural labourer because I left one employer under whom I lived.

Major HOWARD: I trust the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will accept this new Clause. I am not at all clear that we should have tied cottages. As a farmer farming all my life, I have a good many houses belonging to my farms, and I have never found it necessary, nor had occasion, to turn a man out of a house simply because he left my employment. I have always been able, to get on with my men very well, and I believe that this could be done throughout the whole country. Even if it cannot be done, I cannot see why what is sauce for the goose should not be sauce for the gander, and that if the farmer gets compensation for disturbance and for his work on a holding, that these who work on that holding and live on it should not get compensation if they are disturbed.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: This is a very difficult and very important point. I wish the House clearly to understand what is involved. I should like to say, first of all, that with the main object expressed by this proposed new Clause I am entirely in sympathy. I remember when we discussed a Clause on this subject in Committee that the general sense of the Committee was in sympathy, but the Clause proposed is quite unworkable. Therefore, I asked the hon. Gentleman opposite to withdraw it, and I promised I would give further consideration to the matter before Report. This afternoon it
has been moved as a new Clause by an hon. Gentleman who has taken a deep interest in this matter, an interest shared by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Edwards). We all realise that for years and years, long before many who are championing the cause of the agricultural labourer had ever thought about the question, he was prominent, and working on behalf of these whose interests he shared and so thoroughly understood. It is also encouraging that the new Clause has also been supported by the hon. Member for Sudbury (Major Howard). I think he himself is a tenant farmer, and, therefore, we have got a rather remarkable concensus of support for the principle of this Clause, just as we had when it was discussed in Committee. It was not moved in precisely this form. It merely applied the provisions of Clause 7 of the Bill in the case of cottages.
A great part of Clause 7, I then pointed out, was quite inapplicable, and it would not make sense if we applied the Amendment literally. I also pointed out that before compensation for disturbance could be obtained by a tenant farmer, there were certain tests he had to go through. For example, he must not have cultivated properly. He must have broken any of the terms of his agreement, and so on; which conditions were inapplicable in the case of the labourer who had received notice to quit his cottage.
I notice that in the Clause as moved today an attempt has been made to meet that criticism, and a labourer turned out of his cottage would not receive the compensation proposed if he had been guilty of misconduct. Some such test as that is obviously necessary if we are to make the Clause on all-fours with the conditions applying to a tenant farmer under Clause 7; if we are to treat t>he labourer in practically the same way as a tenant farmer. As far as I can see the argument, if the tenant farmer is to receive compensation for disturbance, and that principle is admitted, it is difficult to resist it in the case of the labourer. I should like to point out the limitations. This Clause can only apply to a tied cottage, and other cottages are outside this Clause; and if they were not outside I believe the Clause would not be in order, as it would not come within the title of the Bill.
No doubt the tied cottage is the place in which the greatest grievances have
arisen in the past. It is said that a tenant farmer should not be able to turn a man out at a week's notice, which has been done in some cases. As we know in England, farm labourers are usually engaged at a week's notice and their employment can be terminated after a week; but where there is a tied cottage and a man is living there as the stockman, or carter, or shepherd, a week's notice carries with it a week's notice of the termination of the tenancy of the house, and that is a hard case, and the new Clause would meet that hardship; but it would not meet the case where a farm labourer is living in a cottage which has been hired outside the farm. That is a limitation which I am bound to point out.
There is another now condition which I notice has been put into this new Clause. A case may arise, and no doubt will arise, that a tenant farmer gets rid of his labourers because he himself has had notice to quit. The new tenant may bring his own labourers with him, and in many cases this is done, and it would not be fair, in such a case, to make the tenant farmer himself pay the compensation. It seems to me that in a case of that sort the outgoing tenant should have a claim on his landlord to be reimbursed for the compensation payable to his labourers for getting rid of them because he himself had to leave the holding, but he would not be entitled to get that from his landlord unless he were entitled to get compensation himself. If he were leaving the holding for some reason which disqualified him, because he was a bad farmer or had not paid his rent, in that case it would be part of his penalty that he and not the landlord would have to pay the compensation to the labourers. That point is also dealt with in the new Clause, and, so far as I can see, it is satisfactory. At the same time, I am bound to admit that there may be difficulties of an important character in the working of the now Clause, and I think the matter will have to be reconsidered to some extent in its details.
Sympathising as I do entirely with the objects of my hon. Friends, and recognising that the labourer should be entitled to compensation for disturbance in the same way, so far as possible, as a tenant farmer is under Clause 7; recognising also that the principle is right and wishing most devoutly to
terminate a system which does drive a man out of his house and home in some cases at the shortest possible notice, I do not propose to oppose this new Clause; in fact, I go further and accept the principle of it. I am prepared to allow it to be added to the Bill in its present form, and I have consulted the Minister of Agriculture, who is prepared to accept; the principle of the new Clause, but he will reserve to himself the right of reconsidering the details of this new Clause if it be added to this measure when the Bill reaches another place. That is the position I propose to take up. I fully sympathise with the objects of the Clause, and realise that it is a very great improvement on the Clause that was proposed in Committee, and therefore I think the House may safely add it to the Bill on the understanding that its details may be subject to further consideration.

Sir F. BANBURY: The title of this Measure is
A Bill to amend the Corn Production Act, 1917, and the Enactments relating to Agricultural Holdings.
I have here the Corn Production Act, 1917, and I can see nothing in it whatever about cottages. I have not the Enactments relating to agricultural holdings, but the phrase "Agricultural Holdings" I think makes it quite clear that a cottage cannot mean an agricultural holding. If I am right upon my first point I think I am also right on my second point, and therefore this Clause is out of order because it is beyond the scope and title of the Bill.

Mr. ACLAND: May I point out that the definition of a holding is altered by the Bill from what it was under the Corn Production Act, and by an Amendment in the First Schedule allotments are brought within the definition of a holding. If it is possible for a Bill affecting holdings and corn production to alter the definition of holdings by bringing allotments within the scope of the definition, it seems to me that it would be possible for the scope of this Bill to be widened so that cottages might also be covered.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; to one point. I have very grave doubts as to what your ruling may be, but it seems to me that the first words of the new Clause are really germane to the question because they provide that
Where a dwelling-house forming part of a holding to which the Act of 1908 applies.
The Clause is limited to tied cottages, that is cottages on a holding to which the Agricultural Holdings Act applies. That limitation appears to me to bring the Amendment within the four corners of the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: In reply to the point of Order which has been raised by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Ban-bury), surely the greater includes the lesser. A cottage on a holding must be part of the holding.

Sir F. BANBURY: But it does not follow that a tied cottage is on the holding, and it is very often away from the holding in the village. In my part of the country it is rather the exception than the rule that a tied cottage is on the holding, although I do not say that such a case does not occur. It is, however, very rare, and when it is not on the holding it is not actually part of the holding. The holding is the farm house, the building, and the land connected with it. The cottage happens to be there, but it is not part of the holding, and in many cases it is not even on the holding, and what is to happen in such a case as that?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Of course that is a matter for Debate, but the very first words of the Clause say
Where a dwelling-house forming part of a holding.
Therefore, it is limited to this case, and really I cannot rule the Clause out of Order.

Mr. ACLAND: I am extremely glad the Minister of Agriculture has taken the action he has, and I hope hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment will accept his offer in the spirit in which it was made. There is no doubt that the question of tied houses is one which causes a very great deal of unrest in rural districts and leads to that lack of feeling of security, and there is no reason why we should not add to the security of the labourer just as we are trying to add to the security of the farmer. I am sure that this is a move in the right direction. I think the right hon. Gentleman is right to reserve the possibility of having to amend this new Clause in another place, because the question of tied cottages is one of the most complicated and difficult
questions with which anyone can have to deal. This subject has for a long time been under the consideration of the Agricultural Wages Board, and they came to the conclusion that the only way to get rid of the evils of the tied house system, which were admitted to exist just as much by the employers as by the other side on the Board, was by enabling the labourer to pay an economic rent. In that case, if the cottage does not suit him, then it would be possible for another cottage to be built and for the labourer to pay an economic rent which is not possible under present conditions. The cost of building being so high and wages being what they are, we are a very long way from the labourer being in the position of paying an economic rent.
Therefore it seems to me to be very desirable to try to meet the case even with a limited Clause. I think we should try to meet the tied cottage grievance as the right hon. Gentleman has proposed to do. The evils at present are not so great as they were before the War, because we have not got anything like the system of being able to turn a man out at a week's notice. That has been modified by the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Restrictions Act, and under that Act the agricultural labourer has nothing to complain of. I know a case where a man who happens to work for me has taken employment three miles off, where he can get higher wages than I was paying to him, and that is right enough, but he continues to occupy my cottage which is reserved for the mason on the estate, and I cannot get him out and, therefore, I cannot employ another mason. That is one of the things which the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Restrictions Act prescribes. It is very doubtful whether I can get back the occupation of that cottage for my estate mason. When this evil is not acute, I think it is quite a good time to deal with it by common consent. It is not so much a matter of controversy now, and I am sure the House in general will welcome the efforts which the Minister of Agriculture is making, even in this limited way, to remedy the evils of a system which I think everybody admits.

Colonel MILDMAY: I recognise the good motives of these who are moving this new Clause, but I would remind them that there are two sides to this
question of tied cottages. I only want to deal with their arguments so far as their general denunciation of the system of tied cottages is concerned. They have dealt with tied cottages as if they were in the same position as tied public houses, whereas they are quite different. The so-called tied cottage has in many cases been built in the past by agricultural owners in order to make sure that the labourers employed by the tenant farmers shall be well housed. Many of us are most anxious to lighten the difficulties which arise and which have been described by some of the speakers. We are all anxious to do away with the sufferings to which they have referred, but, after all, you cannot get the necessary labour on the farm unless housing accommodation is provided, and it is not possible to get rid of the difficulty by simply abolishing tied cottages. This is a very difficult problem, and we must all work together in order to see how best we can deal with it.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I think everyone will sympathise with the object of this proposal. Further than that, so far as agriculture is concerned, I see no reason why the labourer who is cultivating land should not be treated on exactly the same basis as the farmer, both being tenants. But we must look at this matter from the practical point of view. Although technically within the Bill, I am afraid that this Clause is really in its nature—I have every sympathy with the proposal—unworkable. This Bill is a Bill promoted for a definite object. It has been framed to carry out that object, and the object is to increase the production of the land. The Compensation Clauses are framed with the idea of giving inducements, either at the expense of the estate or of the owner, to get more out of the land, but this Clause as framed does not appear to me to be drawn in a manner suitable to carry out the object. It does not, in fact, fit in with the Bill. Take Sub-section (3). The Minister in charge of the Bill has accepted that Sub-section, which I venture to suggest is meaningless. It says, in effect, that where a tenant of a holding gives notice to a labourer to quit his cottage in consequence of his having had notice from his landlord, compensation shall be paid. I venture to suggest to the House that such a case could not possibly arise. How could it?
Under what circumstances could the tenant of a holding be obliged to give notice to the tenant of a cottage because he himself has had notice to quit from his landlord? Surely the hon. Member cannot suggest that because a tenant has to leave his farm that is any reason why he should give his labourer notice to leave. It is the new tenant who must do that, if he wants the cottage. Therefore, I say this Sub-section is meaningless. At the beginning of the Clause we are defiling with houses "forming part of a holding to which the Act of 1908 applies." Suppose the tenant and landlord desire to take cottages outside the purview of this Clause altogether. All that is necessary is to take cottages separately from the holding. However desirable the object aimed at by this new Clause may be, I cannot see how it is going to work. You are confusing the whole thing.
It is quite right that the tenant should receive compensation for any allotment which he may have to give up. I am sure the House will gladly support that. But while we sympathise with the proposal with regard to cottages we must not legislate in a hurry or do anything which certainly will not carry out the object which is aimed at. I am perfectly aware my right hon. Friend has suggested that the Clause will require to be amended in another place, but I do not think we have any right to throw the responsibility of that upon that other place. I suggest my right hon. Friend should give consideration to the points I have raised, not in opposition to the principle of the Clause itself, but to the manner in which it is proposed to carry it out. I repeat I believe the Clause to be impracticable, and as the right hon. Gentleman is going to recommit the Bill for another purpose, I would suggest there is no reason why he should not, when he has thought it out properly, introduce this Clause in this House, without throwing the responsibility on the other House of putting it into a workable form. I hope for the credit of this House the right hon. Gentleman will bring in a proper Clause to carry out the object aimed at, so that we may give it full consideration here. We do not want to run the risk of the question being put in an unpopular light by the introduction of political matters. It might be suggested, for instance, the other House was
supporting the labourer while we refused to do so, and it might also occur that in the discussions here the same allegation might be thrown out against individual Members. I do suggest it is our duty, not merely to get up here and say what we think to be popular, but to point out how we can give effect to the object which is aimed at.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: I have as much sympathy with agricultural labourers as hon. Members opposite. This Clause affords a curious illustration of how customs differ in different parts of the country. We have had given us descriptions of agricultural labourers' cottages in Norfolk and other parts of England, and I want to point out that these descriptions show a state of affairs entirely different to that which obtains in Scot land This Bill is to apply to the whole of Great Britain, and, therefore, it will apply to Scotland, and its effect would be that the whole of the agricultural work in Scotland would be disorganised and thrown out of gear by this Clause if it were passed into law. Let me remind the House of the conditions appertaining to the agricultural labourer in Scotland, lie takes on with a farmer at a hiring market for one year. He gets a cottage and garden, in addition to his pay. He moves into it on a certain day, the 28th of November, and at the end of his hiring moves out again on the 28th November. Men as a rule do not desire to stay any longer in one man's service. They prefer a migratory life, and we have often endeavoured to induce them to give it up but without success. Hon. Members opposite have described agricultural labourers as servants. That term does not apply to the Scottish labourer. There is no more independent man on the face of the earth that he is, and his independence proceeds from the fact that he knows that he can go to the hiring market and dispose of his labour to the best possible advantage, and, wherever he goes, find a cottage ready for him. He gets very well paid. At the present time over £150 is the rate of pay. He is not a person, therefore, to be pitied. I repeat that if this Clause as framed were applied to Scotland it would simply have the effect of throwing all agricultural work completely out of gear. It may be suggested that the Scottish system is a bad system. At any rate, it will take a long time to
alter it and to produce anything better. I therefore hope that (his proposal will not be applied to Scotland.

Mr. GARDINER: When this Bill was first introduced some of us suggested that there should be separate measures for England and Scotland, and the discussion which has taken place to-day has made it more than ever clear that the conditions that appertain to Scotland differ so much from these in England that separate Bills would be a great advantage to both. The hon. Member who last spoke has pointed out that the conditions of engagement in Scotland are absolutely different to these in England. I am glad to be able, to say, speaking from my own experience, that in my immediate neighbourhood we have men who have been many years in the same service and have had no desire to change, livery Member of this House must sympathise, of course, with the difficulties of the agricultural labourer. We must wish that his condition could be improved as much as possible. There is no section of the working classes of this country so loyal, so able, and so active as agricultural labourers. Therefore our sympathy goes towards them. But if this new Clause is going to be accepted it will be necessary to conserve the special conditions that apply to Scotland, and to introduce words which will secure that end, so that we may make sure that the real object is achieved when next the matter is before this Assembly.

6.0 P.M.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Morison): I desire to say a few words in support of the principle of this Clause from the Scottish point of view. I venture to say that the principle will be welcomed by every Scottish farm labourer in Scotland. The case for this Clause seems to be stronger in regard to Scotland than in regard to England. The Scottish farm labourer, by his contract, has the right to his cottage either for a year or for six months, whereas in England, I understand, it is generally only a weekly tenancy—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]—at any rate, in many districts. It seems to me to be a far more serious thing to dispossess a Scottish farm labourer of his cottage, to which he is entitled for six months, than it is in England, where it is only a weekly tenancy, but the point with regard to this Clause is that it makes the farmer liable to pay compensation
to his farm labourer if he dismisses him arbitrarily from his employment. That is the theory on which compensation is given to the farmer when he is dispossessed of his farm by the proprietor. The Clause carefully safeguards the case in which a farm labourer may be justifiably dismissed, as for misconduct, or incompetence. These are exceptions which are recognised in this Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Who settles that?

Mr. MORISON: I am bound to say that, so far as the framework of the Clause is concerned, it seems to me to be as accurate as any such Clause can be. Some hon. Members have suggested that it might be improved by careful consideration, and for that reason my right hon. Friend has said that he reserves the right to make alterations in it. So far, however, as I can judge from the course of the discussion, it does not appear that any practical suggestions of that kind have been made. With regard to the case of Scotland, I venture to suggest that the Scottish farm labourer is deserving of our greatest sympathy, and, speaking for myself, as representing an agricultural constituency, I welcome the principle of this Clause.

Mr. E. WOOD: I do not wish to intervene in an eternal controversy between Scotsmen, beyond saying that my experience of this Bill, whether in Committee or, so far as it has gone, on Report, inclines me to their view that it would have saved a great deal of anxiety on the part of English Members if we had had a separate Bill for Scotland. Almost every speech that we have had on this Clause, so far, has served to emphasise the difficulty of translating general principles into Parliamentary language. My hon. Friend who moved the Clause knows very well that he was able in Committee, and is able here, to count upon a very large measure of support from these of us who more or less habitually act together in these matters, with regard to the general principle that he has in mind. I am bound to say, however, after listening to the speeches, that I very much hope the Government will see their way to accept the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) as to re-committing the Bill in respect of this Clause. It has
already been proposed to re-commit it with regard to something else, and, therefore, I do not fancy that it can be very difficult to re-commit it also with regard to this Clause. The Clause has been criticised from the Scottish point of view. I do not want to go into details, but a great many of these criticisms apply with no less force to the part of the country with which I am familiar—namely, the East Riding of Yorkshire—and to a great many other parts of the North of England. When I look at the Clause, and ask myself how it is going to work, I am struck, first of all, by the difficulty as to who is to define the misconduct of the workmen. It is no use pretending that you get over the difficulty by words; there are only two people who can define misconduct—the workman and the employer.
There is another observation that I should like to make. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is not here, but perhaps the Lord Advocate will convey my observation to him. I was amazed to hear him say, while accepting the principle of the Clause, that the labourer would, of course, get no compensation if he lost his house owing to the fact that his late employer had lost his place through being a bad farmer. My right hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Pretyman) dealt with one side of this question, but I want to go a little further. I can imagine a case in which, owing to a farmer having been given notice to quit because he was farming badly, his labourers were involved in his departure, and lost their houses. To say that they are to be debarred from compensation because he has been a bad farmer seems to me to be the most amazing proposition that I ever heard. One has heard of the sins of the fathers being visited on the children, but one has never heard of the sins of the tenant farmers being visited on their labourers. I suggest that much more consideration of this Clause is necessary, and I am sure that the Government, in considering the matter, ought to pay great attention to these points which were urged by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Totnes (Colonel Mildmay). We all know the evils of the tied house, and it is very easy to make a case of it. It is no less easy, as he said, to show the difficulty of cultivating the land without the tied house. There is only one remedy, and that is the indirect remedy of providing more
houses. It is worth remembering that No. 10 Downing Street is a tied house, and that the principle goes into all walks of life. Therefore, I want to press upon the Government that they should not pass this. Clause merely because they think they have to pass something. We all assent to the principle, but we have the right to ask that the House of Commons should do its own work, instead of sending it across to be done in another place.

Captain FITZROY: I desire to emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon has just said. I see that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill has returned, and I am sure he will realise that practically the whole House is agreed that, when such large compensation is being given to the tenant, compensation should also be given to the labourer. I think he will also realise, or at any rate, that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Morison) will realise, because he has been here during the discussion, that most hon. Members present are agreed that this new Clause, as drafted, does not carry out the intentions of its Mover. In fact, if it were included in the Bill in its present form, I think it would really do more harm than good to the labourer. I do not think it is a reasonable proposal that the right hon. Gentleman has made that we should pass, this Clause to-day, and leave it to be put into shape in another place. That does not seem to be a courageous thing to do, and it is rather shifting the responsibility of what the right hon. Gentleman considers to be a difficult task on to someone else's shoulders. If he will consent to re-commit the Bill in respect of this Clause, and to draft another Clause, I am sure that that will be the best solution of the difficulty. I do not think it will be very difficult to draft a Clause to meet this case. The simpler the Clause is, the better it will meet the case. A Clause providing that compensation shall be given to a labourer when he is given notice to quit his house should not be drafted in terms which are difficult to understand; it should be quite simple and direct—to some such effect as that a month's notice shall be given to a labourer on his being given notice to quit. That is much more what the labourer would like than an indefinite compensation which is included in a Clause such as the one which we are now discussing. If the right hon. Gentleman will meet my suggestion, I would ask
him to take into consideration the real thing which the labourer values in regard to compensation when he has to quit his house, that is to say, that he shall have full compensation for his garden, as apart from his house. If the right hon. Gentleman will take these two points into consideration, I do not think he will find it as difficult as he suggested to draft a Clause which will thoroughly meet the case, and of which the House will approve.

Mr. LAMBERT: This has been a very valuable discussion, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member (Mr. Royce) for having brought the subject before the House. It has always seemed to me that the agricultural labourer had not sufficient security in regard to his cottage, especially when he is liable to be turned out at such very short notice as is sometimes the, case. No farmer can grumble at compensation being given to the agricultural labourer when he is arbitrarily evicted from his cottage, because that is what the farmer claims for himself. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We here in the House of Commons have a special responsibility, however, to see that this Clause is properly drafted before it leaves this House, so that the labourer may really be able to benefit by it. With great deference to the Government Bench, I do not think that we ought to leave it to another place to amend this Clause. I am sure that the Government themselves, having the principle so near to their hearts, would like it to be amended in the House of Commons, so that the people's assembly may have the opportunity of saying whether it is a good Clause or not. My right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate said that this Clause is practically perfect, and one would almost think that it had been drafted by the Government draftsman. He said in effect, "I do not see any fault in it; it is all right." Would my right hon. Friend, however, just define for me, a simple agriculturist, what really constitutes misconduct; or perhaps I may have an answer from the learned Attorney-General of England? What does constitute misconduct as between the agricultural labourer and his employer the farmer?

Mr. MORISON: There is a whole chapter of law, both in England and in Scotland, with regard to the meaning of mis-
conduct and what constitutes misconduct, and I have no doubt that all that law will be available in considering the words of this Sub-section.

Mr. LAMBERT: As I said, I am a simple agriculturist, and I am told that there is a whole chapter of law. I have no doubt that there is, because my right hon. Friend has stated it clearly. Again, I have had a good many years' experience of this House Of course I am not a lawyer, but I do not know this chapter, or these chapters of law. If I do not know it, what about the agricultural labourer? Is he to have recourse to these whole chapters of law on misconduct which my right hon. Friend has adumbrated at that Box? The trouble is that the legal fraternity give us laymen credit for too much knowledge. Would it not be very much better for the Government to give effect to the principle of this Clause by bringing in a Clause of their own which will be easily understandable by the farmer and the labourer? To tell us that there is a whole chapter of law on this question of misconduct does not carry us very much further. Let me ask, how is the labourer to claim compensation? Is he to read up this complicated treatise on misconduct and then go before an arbitrator to find out whether he is going to get compensation or not? Who is going to pay the legal expenses? If you are going to benefit the labourer, make it simple, easy, and plainly understood, but I am sure there is not a gentleman on that bench who can say that this will be an easy Clause to define as it is at present drafted. To the principle we all agree, because the agricultural labourer is a very important partner in the agricultural industry. He should be encouraged in every possible way. If we are going to pass legislation for his benefit, do not let us shirk our duty, but let us, as Members of the House of Commons, have an opportunity of putting this Clause into shape so as to carry out the intentions of the Government, and not leave it in more or less a cowardly fashion to the other House.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have been very much impressed with the Debate and with two points: first of all, the evident desire of the great majority of hon. Members to pass a Clause on these lines, that is to say, dealing more or loss in this
manner with this particular subject; and secondly, with the desire, not unnatural, which has been expressed from all quarters that its more detailed consideration should be dealt with by this House, and that we should not leave it to another place. I am going to suggest a course which I hope will be generally accepted. I do not wish to have the Clause withdrawn at this stage. I do not think it would be fair to ask my hon. Friends opposite to do that. They themselves moved a similar Clause in Committee, and at my request withdrew it. I think, if the House is in earnest in desiring to deal with this question, the Clause should be added to the Bill at this stage, but I understand it will be quite in Order for me, when I recommit the Bill in respect of the allotment Clause, which you, Sir, pointed out was not in Order at this stage, to recommit it also in respect of this Clause. That will enable us to have a detailed discussion of the Clause when that recommittal takes place. I would suggest, therefore, that we should allow the Clause now to be added to the Bill, and that we should postpone detailed criticism until we get to that stage, which will have this advantage. This Clause in its present form only appeared on the Paper this morning, and there has been no time really for me, or for private Members, to consider what Amendments, if any, they wish to put down; but if we accept the Clause now and add it to the Bill and then recommit the Bill in respect of this Clause, it will give ample time for hon. Members to consider the matter carefully, and for the Government to take stock of the position, and it will leave the matter entirely under the control of the House. That being so, I hope no attempt will be made to move Amendments or to alter the Clause at the present moment.

Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps the better course will be not to accept the Clause as it is now, but to recommit the Bill, and then when it is recommitted the Government could bring in a Clause embodying what they want. But whatever course is decided on I should like to deal with the really practical point which would arise if some Clause of this sort is passed. The object of the Bill, as I understand it, is to increase production. I want to know how you are going to increase production if you keep upon the land a man living in a cottage who is not working on
the land, but working somewhere else. [Interruption.] I do not know. But if you are going to put all these burdens either on the landlord or the tenant farmer or both, how do you suppose we are going to continue any business which is subject to all these troubles and burdens? The hon. Member (Major Howard) told us he had never been obliged to turn a labourer out of his cottage and that he had never, in consequence of that, been at a loss to find a proper supply of labour. His experience is very unique. In the part of the country that I know there are only sufficient cottages provided to work the farm, and I do not think that is an isolated farm. I once owned property in Suffolk, and in that part of the county there were certainly only just enough cottages to work the farms. Supposing one of the labourers leaves and chooses to remain in his cottage. [Interruption.] I know several instances where it has taken place and the labourer has been turned out after he has been there two months or three months. I know a case where he remained from January to August in a cottage and refused to go, though the farmer was unable to find a place for the man he wanted to employ in his place. He remained there for these six months and they had no remedy, and it was not until the magistrate passed an order for his ejection that he went out. The right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Addison) entertains different views on this subject from my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Boscawen), because only a few months ago he put into the Rent Restriction Act a new Clause which provided that where a man occupied a cottage as a condition of his service the magistrates could grant an order for ejection without finding out whether there was alternative accommodation.

Colonel MILDMAY: If the Local Committee will not—

Sir F. BANBURY: That is a different point. This has nothing whatever to do with the Local Committee. This applies to a man who holds a cottage as a condition of his employment, and under those circumstances an order for ejection can be given whether or not there is alternative accommodation, if it is wanted for another employé. I had a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman about this Clause. He put it in in order to apply it to agricultural hold-
ings, because he said it was so necessary that on agricultural holdings a sufficient supply of labour should be obtained. Now comes my right hon. Friend, and because a Clause perhaps appeals to one's heart—it is not always wise to appeal to the heart without first appealing to the brain—accepts it. With the solitary exception of that part of Suffolk which has the good fortune to be represented by my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Howard), if a Clause of (his sort is passed it will render it very difficult, not only to improve cultivation and increase production, but to maintain the production which is being carried out at present. Certainly I think the only thing the Government can do, if they are going to accept something of this sort—and I really do not see how they are going to carry it out—is to withdraw the whole Clause, and when the Bill has been recommitted, bring forward a new Clause embodying something totally different.
In regard to observations as to which there was some discussion about a custom which it was apparently thought was confined to Scotland, it existed at one time over the whole of Wiltshire. At present it exists only in some parts of the county and it is gradually falling into desuetude, but it does exist. When landlords are help up to approbrium it must be remembered that, I should say on every estate, they have provided these cottages for one purpose only, namely, that they should be occupied by people working on the farm, and they have done at a great loss to themselves. If you take the rates he has to pay and the repairs you will find that the rent does not pay for them alone, to say nothing of interest on the original outlay. Now, the purpose for which he built these cottages is to be done away with unless he pays compensation which, as far as I can see, may run into £30 or £40. or it may be even more. He has done what manufacturers have not done. They have not provided houses for their workers. Someone else did it for them. But the country landlord has done it and this is his reward. I believe this Bill is going to be a great blow to agriculture, but if we are going to accept this sort of Amendments merely because we think it is a little hard on someone that soms thing should happen, regardless of whether or not it carries out the object of the Bill, namely, to increase production,
I am sure we shall be landed in an impossible position.

Mr. CAUTLEY: This question seems to me to raise questions of principle extending far beyond agriculture—to tied houses in many industries, urban, industrial and otherwise. I only propose to discuss it from the point of view of agriculture. As I read the Clause, the compensation given to a tied tenant will be a year's rent at 3s., because the rent of a tied house is limited by the Act to 3s. a week. That will come to about £7 10s. a year. In addition to that there will be the cost of removal and any other damages or expenses the occupant of the cottage might be put to. I suppose we might put that at about 50s., so, if the Clause is passed, no farmer can change a man for any reason except misconduct without paying him a sum of £10 so long as that man occupies a tied house.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is it not a much larger subject? Does not the four years apply also?

Mr. CAUTLEY: I was coming to that presently. If, on the other hand, the farm labourer occupies a house on the holding not tied in the way that it is made part of his employment, but he holds it on a weekly or fortnightly tenancy at a higher rent than 3s., the compensation that will have to be paid will be very much more considerable. I am much obliged for the intervention of the right hon. Member for the City, because it is by no means clear that under this Bill as the Clause is drawn—I have no doubt that could be amended—whether the dismissal of a workman on the farm would not in any case be capricious where it was not for misconduct. In that case compensation would be anything that the arbitrator might give up to four times £7 10s., that is, £30. In my view there is no reason for such a fine being put upon the farmer. I have taken that view with regard to the fining of the owner for the benefit of the farmer. I equally hold the view that both are bad; but if the farmer is to have compensation by way of fines on the landlord, the labourer is much more entitled to compensation than the farmer. Therefore, if the Bill goes through in its present form, and if the farmer is to put into his pocket the fine which is taken from the owner, I shall certainly support the view that the agricultural worker should have the same
compensation. In carrying out this principle I believe it will pass the understanding of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to draft a suitable Clause, because as the Bill stands now it is limited to the houses on the particular holding. Why should a man who happens to have a house on the holding, as part of his employment, or a house on the holding independent of his employment, have that benefit which is a benefit to him while he is working on that particular holding, and receive compensation if he is dismissed, while every other labourer who is working on that particular holding, if he is dismissed, should be without such compensation? Why should the man who happens to be in the position of occupier of a house on the farm receive compensation on dismissal, while the labourer in exactly a similar position, except that he does not happen to have a house on the holding, be without compensation?
To my mind this is an impossible scheme. It is opening the door to a system which will be a charge on industry of every kind, and I believe that when it is considered these who are engaged in industry will recoil from it. If in agriculture the workman is to receive compensation for being dismissed from his employment, why should not the man who works in a factory or in a coalmine receive compensation when he is turned out of his tied house? The case of hardship has been put forward. Of course, it is a hardship where a man is dismissed and receives notice to quit his cottage, but there are hardships in every case—they are not peculiar to agriculture. Many tenancies of industrial houses in this country are equally held on a week's notice, and the Rents Act meets these cases in the present difficult times when there are not enough houses, and the Rents Act meets hard cases in agriculture. The only claim on which I should support this principle of compensation is that the agricultural labourer is as much entitled to claim for compensation as the farmer is in making his claim upon the landlord when he receives notice to quit his farm. If the farmer is going to put this money into his pocket I shall support the farm labourer in also having his share.

Captain HOTCHKIN: I agree with the hon. Member for Holland Division (Mr. Royce) that something should be done to meet hard cases. I too have sympathy with the agricultural labourer, but at the
same time we are starting upon a very dangerous principle when we enter into this question of compensation without very carefully going into it. It needs to be carefully thought out in the interests not only of the tenant and of the labourer, but of agriculture as a whole. We are putting many burdens upon agriculture, and this will be an additional burden, and unless it is very carefully thought out it will have the tendency to deprive the farmers of that labour on the farms of which they are very badly in need. In the case of the tied house, if the man comes on the understanding that he is only engaged for one year, I think that is quite sufficient, and that he should not be able to claim compensation. If, on the other hand, you have men who are more or less casually engaged, and on very short notice, I do feel that they should get either a year's notice or compensation in the way of rent for being turned out at short notice. I trust that when this Clause is reframed, that special consideration will be given to the tied man, but that it will be seen that farmers are not penalised where they have made a definite, fair, and honourable bargain, and that the man should keep the bargain just, as much as the man who employs him.

Major WHELER: We have got into an extraordinary position in regard to this Clause. The situation seems to be this, that the Government admit that the Clause is not a good Clause. They admit it is not likely to carry out its purpose. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At any rate it is a Clause which does not really do that which we have in view. The hon. Member who moved the Clause knows that I in company with others in Committee agreed that something would have to be done in the way of compensation; but this Clause is full of objections, and, as has been shown by speaker after speaker, it is bristling with difficulties. Surely when that is admitted on all sides the simplest plan would be for the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Clause and bring, up a Clause that will carry out the objects which many of us think will be necessary for the people who have to administer it, and that will give us what we want, namely, a right system of compensation for the agricultural labourer who suffers injustice on being removed from his cottage. I understand the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen) to say
that he cannot withdraw it. At any rate, the Clause is a bad one, and that being so, I hope that he will not proceed with it.

Mr. HOHLER: I think the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw this Clause and introduce a new Clause on the re-commital of the Bill. I take the strongest objection to the Clause. One broad principle I put is this, that at the present time every inducement has been held out to agricultural owners and others to build houses. Could there be any greater deterrent to building in any Bill than the Clause now proposed? Can you expect any landlord or agricultural tenant to build houses under these circumstances? Would anyone build a house for his servant if he was liable to penalties such as these? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) has pointed out the difficulties in regard to this Clause as read with Clause 7. The wholly objectionable penalty of four years' rent is quite impossible. Fancy the position of the agricultural tenant in regard to his servant! For one thing, the allowance of 3s. for rent is wholly inadequate. The house in almost every case would command a rent of 4s. or 5s. a week, and, as a rule, the agricultural tenant has to pay the rates as well. The servant gets his cottage for 3s., and pays no rates—they are paid by the tenant. It is really extraordinary that the agricultural tenant should be called upon possibly to pay four years' rent to that man if he is turned out of his cottage. It scorns to me perfectly impossible and wholly unreasonable. This is a penalty of the severest kind. Nobody can suggest that, whatever the tenant in agriculture may do, his servant will be for four years without employment. Within that period he will be able to find other employment, or the probability is that his financial means will be at an end. Why should we put this heavy penalty upon the agricultural tenant? The thing is wholly unwarranted, and it will induce people not to put up buildings on their agricultural holdings. I cannot think that the hon. Member who introduced this Clause had considered that point of view.
This Clause would have the effect of de laying repairs. The agricultural tenant or the landlord would prefer that closing orders should be made against their cottages, and by that means the duty of providing the houses would be thrown upon
the local authorities. At the present time the cost of putting up houses by local authorities in agricultural districts is from £1,000 to £1,400. I wholly object to this Clause, and I trust the Minister in charge will withdraw it. My objection does not end there. It is an exceedingly difficult Clause to construe. The Lord Advocate, when asked to define misconduct, did nothing of the kind. He probably was referring to decisions under the Work men's Compensation Act, which is a different matter. Supposing I engage a shepherd, and he comes, apparently, with a good character, but I find when he has been with me for a short time, and I have given him ample time to show his abilities, that he does not understand his work, that he does not understand foot-rot, or fly, or anything of that sort. Is that misconduct? I ask the Lord Advocate what is his opinion? I could not get rid of that man, although he is wholly incompetent, except under a penalty of perhaps four years' rent. I do not think the Government can have considered this Clause. I may be wrong, but I think the Clause is wholly illusory, and I hope hon. Members will support me in asking the Government to re-commit the Bill on this point. I would suggest that one way by which I could try to defeat this Clause if it became law—

Mr. J. JONES: You are a Bolshevik—trying to defeat the law.

Mr. HOHLER: That language is more fit for street corners than the Houses of Parliament.

Mr. JONES: The same argument.

Mr. HOHLER: I have my own view. If I am a tenant farmer and I have got a man who, for the purposes of the argument, is my tenant in common, I may cease to employ him. I wait a week or a fortnight, and I say, "You are going." Where is the protection? I see none. It may be that the Law Courts may take my view, but I suggest that this is an inconsiderate and unjust Clause. It extends the injustice which, in my view, is inflicted by Section 7. It does not tend to better relations between master and servant, but tends to destroy what has hitherto prevailed in agriculture—that the landlords have built the cottages necessary for the holding, and have improved them and kept them so as to carry on the business. Suppose the local authority had
built these cottages and a man occupying one of these works for me, he does not get the four years' rent if he ceases to be in my employment. Another way in which the Clause could be defeated would be this. Every prudent landlord by arrangement with his tenant would say, "I do not let you these cottages with the farm at all. I am going to retain them. I will arrange with you from time to time that I will let them to such tenants as you require." Parliament should not pass a Clause so futile as this and so unjust.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): I would make an appeal to the House to come to a decision on this matter now. We had an interesting and useful Debate in Committee which was largely attended, and we have now been debating the matter for an hour and a half. The course which the House ought to take is clear. There is a large body of opinion in favour of a Clause which shall be remodelled in order to carry out the spirit of this Clause. This Clause is moved by the hon. Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce) and the question of withdrawing it lies with him. My right hon. Friend (Sir A. Boscawen) is willing to have the Clause added to the Bill, because as he is in accord with the spirit of the Clause he is anxious not to postpone the opportunity of having that principle embodied in the Bill, and as a pledge of good faith it is very often done in that way. He says, "I will accept the Clause, but if it needs amendment afterwards then I reserve my right to do it." Within my own short experience I know that often Clauses and Amendments are accepted, and I am constantly pressed not to reject an Amendment, but to accept it, in order to show good faith on the part of these on the Government Bench. That is the position as it appears to my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Boscawen). I cannot agree with my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hohler) who thinks so badly of the Clause. I think that it does a good deal. I see a good many points, as has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), in which the Clause may be suitably amended as it can be in Committee. In Committee the House will have the opportunity of reconsidering it and making amendments. I have responded
to the appeal made by my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) and I have taken the matter out of the Sphere of the heart and placed it in the sphere of the brain, and, having worked very hard with my brain for the last quarter of an hour, I am clearly of opinion that the right course would be to come to a decision on the issue now before us. I hope the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Do we understand that the arrangement is that the Government will take full responsibility themselves for amending the Clause, just in the same way that they would take the responsibility if this Clause were withdrawn and a new one put forward?

Sir E. POLLOCK: Yes. I have ascertained from my right hon. Friend that there will be an opportunity for Members to put down Amendments to the Clause, and my right hon. Friend authorises me to say that we will take the responsibility for Amendments being moved to the Clause in so far as we think they are necessary.

Mr. PRETYMAN: To make it a workable Clause.

Sir E. POLLOCK: Yes. Opinions may differ. We do not undertake to accept all the Amendments which are put down, but to make all the Amendments which we think necessary.

Mr. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to take into consideration Amendments moved from all parts of the House?

Mr. ROYCE: I am glad to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to have the Clause inserted in the Bill and have it amended afterwards, if necessary.

Major M. WOOD: I have nothing to add as to the injustice of paying compensation to farm servants, but I would like to refer to the application of this particular Clause to Scotland. Farm servants there are engaged in quite a different way from the way in which they are engaged in England. They are usually engaged for six months or a year. Six weeks before the end of that time they are either re-engaged by the farmer at the freemarket or they reengage themselves to somebody else. But they are never given notice to quit.
Section 7 of the Bill says that the compensation is only to be payable when the tenant gets notice to quit. As these farm servants never do get notice to quit, it does not seem to me that the Act applies to them at all. The great majority of farm servants in Scotland, if not practically all, are engaged in that way. I put that forward for the consideration of the Government.

Mr. LANE-FOX: I am sure that the general sense of the House wishes to support the hon. Member (Mr. Royce) who moved this Clause, but he must see that the general opinion is that this is not a workable Clause which would do all that we want. I quite understand that, having been the parent of this very promising infant, he does not wish to abandon it. But if he withdraws it, a new Clause, in its place, would have to be put down by the Government, and I put it to him that it would be infinitely more satisfactory to approach this problem entirely fresh with a new Clause framed on different lines. This is not a destructive suggestion at all; but I do suggest that it will not be satisfactory to amend this Clause, and that it would be far better to withdraw it and start entirely afresh, and get a really satisfactory Clause.

Proposed Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Swan)—(Compensation in respect of injury due to subsidence consequent upon mining operations)—is out of Order. It is outside the scope of the Bill, and would require to be dealt with by a separate Bill of its own.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Dwelling-houses occupied by workmen employed in agriculture.)

Where under any contract of employment of a workman employed in agriculture current at or made after the commencement of this Act, the provision of a dwelling-house or part of a dwelling-house for the occupation of the workman forms part of the remuneration of the workman, and the provisions of Sections fourteen and fifteen of the Housing, Town Planning, &c, Act, 1909, ore inapplicable by reason only of the house or part of the house not being let to the workman, there shall be implied as part of the contract of employment and
as from the commencement of the occupation or of this Act whichever date is the earlier, the like conditions as would be implied under these provisions if the house or part of the house were so let, and these provisions shall apply accordingly as if incorporated in this Section with the substitution of "employer" for "landlord" and such other modifications as may be necessary.—[Mr. Walter Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. WALTER SMITH: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I think that the Amendment which it embodies is perfectly clear.

Mr. ROYCE: I beg to second the Motion.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. Is not this Clause the same as that which we have just passed? The object, as far as I can make out, is exactly the same, though the words are different. If that is so, it would be out of Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must confess that it rather puzzles me. The wording is entirely different. Whether the object intended is the same or not, I cannot say.

Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps some hon. Gentleman will explain wherein the object of this Clause differs from that of the other Clause.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that, if the right hon. Baronet looks at it, he will see that it does not provide compensation in the same way as the Clause which has been passed proposes to do, but it imposes certain obligations upon the landlord letting the house. I think that it raises a rather different point and that it is worthy of discussion.

7.0 P.M.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am glad to reassure my right hon Friend that this Clause has really no relation at all to the Clause which he views with a certain amount of dismay and anxiety. This Clause brings into certain cases the operation of Section 14 and 15 of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909, and I am quite certain I shall have not only his approval, but his support, when I tell him what the object of the Clause is. Under Sections 14 and 15 of the Housing and Town Planning Act, where premises are let they carry with them the guarantee that they shall be fit
for human habitation. My right hon. Friend is one of the kindest-hearted men in the world, and I am sure he will callow both his brain and his heart to go with this Clause, because he is the very last man to desire to condemn any person to live in a building not fit for human habitation. The two Sections are necessary, for this reason. In the one case, Section 14 says that, in the case of a house situate in the country, elsewhere than London, which has not got a rental value of over sixteen pounds,
There shall be implied a condition that the house is at the commencement of the holding in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.
That has not applied and does not apply to houses which are let on a three years' tenancy and on terms that the lessee shall undertake the repairs. Clause 15 says that in particular cases to which Clause 14 applies, that is, where the tenant does not undertake the repairs, and where the houses are of this small value, there is to be a continued undertaking on the part of the landlord that it shall be reasonably fit for human habitation; not a very onerous burden to be put on the landlord. It does not involve him in a very high condition of repair, but it does involve that, at the outset of the tenancy and during the occupation of a tenant, the house shall be reasonably fit for human habitation. The Clause which is now being moved provides that that undertaking shall be given and adhered to in the case of dwelling-houses occupied by workmen employed in agriculture. The reason why the Clause is necessary is that in many cases the premises are given or the occupation takes place without any pay-sent at all being made in respect of it, and therefore you cannot say that there is any rent actually paid. All that the Clause effects is that in this case, where the rental is not, actually reserved, yet where the workman is put into the occupation of premises of small value, there shall be an implied undertaking when he comes in that it is fit for human habitation and shall continue to be so.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Does the Clause do anything more than has already been clone under the Public Health Act?

Sir E. POLLOCK: Yes, I think it is necessary, as I pointed out, that in the case where no rental at all is reserved
the same—I will not call it letting, but where leave is given to occupy the house in agricultural areas, the same obligation shall apply. Inasmuch as no rental value at all is concerned, the; Act to which he refers does not apply. It applies to cases where rent is reserved. The object of the new Clause is to bring the same system into play where no rental is reserved.

Mr. PRETYMAN: We must all sympathise with the desire that agricultural labourers' houses should be kept in proper repair, as are other houses, but I cannot see how it is brought under this Bill. In the previous Amendment it was brought under the Bill by the words,
Where a dwelling-house forming part of a holding to which the Act of 1908 applies.
In this case there is none of that, but the words, "a workman employed in agriculture." We have various definitions of agriculture, and one is that it applies to forestry as well as farming, quite rightly in that regard. Is this Clause within the terms of title of the Bill? I cannot quite see how the Corn Production Act and the Agricultural Holdings Act refer to forestry.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I submit that it is not a critical point. The title of the Bill not only amends the Corn Production Act, which is immaterial for this purpose, it also relates to undertakings relating to agricultural holdings. Agricultural holdings are not merely holdings of agricultural land without residences or cottagers upon them, but they include also tenements and residences in which agricultural labourers can be and are in fact housed. The Housing and Town Planning Act contains these two Sections, which apply to houses when let, first in London, next in a borough, and thirdly elsewhere. So that Section 14 does at the present time apply to houses which are let in the country. Inasmuch as there are the words in the title of the Bill "Enactments relating to agricultural holdings" you are dealing with the residences and houses upon agricultural holdings. It is, I submit, quite in order that you should apply Sections 14 and 15 to an Act which deals with the cases of all houses in agricultural areas which are not above a certain rental. I submit that within the words, "Enactments relating to agricultural holdings" it is possible to introduce Sections 14 and 15 of the Act, because these Sections would apply to
cases where rent is received for agricultural holdings.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Take the case of a house in a wood—a woodman's house. Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with that?

Sir E. POLLOCK: The question, as I understand it, is whether this Clause can be and would be within the title of the Bill. I am not prepared, nor do I think it necessary, to deal with the question if, when the Clause has been added to the Bill, it will apply to every house occupied by a woodman, or in the particular circumstances which my right hon. Friend suggests. All I am concerned with is to answer the question put, if I can. It is within the title of the Bill, because the Clause will apply to a certain number of agricultural houses, although it may not be actually stated.

Mr. SPEAKER: I believe that is so. This Clause refers to workmen employed in agriculture, and it comes within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. PRETYMAN: With all respect, Sir, it says here, "workmen employed in agriculture." I venture to submit that the word "agriculture," as used in that Clause, covers a wider field than that covered in the Bill, and therefore to that extent it is outside the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: It can be limited by an Amendment. If the hon. Member thinks that it goes too far he can move an Amendment.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Secretary for Scotland a question relating to this new Clause? As he knows, a very large portion of the residences of agricultural workers in Scotland are covered by the first three or four lines of the Clause, I hope I shall not be presumed to suggest that my right hon. Friend has not very fully discharged his duties in that matter, but I would ask if the Government could give us an assurance that the Clause as drafted, seeing it is provided to cover English conditions, has thoroughly within its ambit all the Scottish conditions which the Secretary for Scotland knows so well.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): As I am advised, the Clause fits in with our Scottish conditions as fully as with English conditions. If there should be the slightest doubt about
that matter I will see that it is put right in another place.

Mr. LAMBERT: I honestly confess I do not think the Government have treated agriculture fairly in this matter. Here is a Clause moved by my hon. Friend behind me, and I am sorry he did not make it very clear, though that does not matter. I listened to the Solicitor-General, and he did not make it much clearer either. This Clause appears for the first time this morning on the Paper. You cannot play ducks and drakes with a great industry like agriculture. You cannot put in in this way a series of Amendments which we do not understand. If the Government think it is a good Clause, well and good, let it be read a Second time and added to the Bill in the same way as the last Clause. Let us have an opportunity, however, of examining it in Committee, as we shall have with the last one. I protest strongly against agriculture being made the dumping ground of all these somewhat involved Clauses. After all, you are dealing with a very important industry, and I am not sure that all the legislation that is being passed now is not going to have the effect of considerably hampering the application of industry to agriculture.

Mr. J. JONES: made an observation which was inaudible.

Mr. LAMBERT: The hon. Gentleman has interrupted—

Mr. JONES: I am not interrupting, I am supporting you.

Mr. LAMBERT: I have the support of my hon. Friend behind me, who wishes to enforce the point I am making to the Government that this is hurried legislation. I really feel that at the present moment in agriculture we are passing through a very critical time, and I do not want to see ill-digested legislation passed which may injure industry and therefore the country. If this is a good Clause, why did not the Government put it in in the first place? It is not treating the House fairly; it is not treating the industry fairly to accept these Clauses, as to the moaning of which many of us have but a vague idea. If you accept this Clause the right course to pursue is to recommit the Bill in respect of it and let the House study it.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not accept the doctrine that the Government are
never to accept any Amendment. I should very much like to know what my right hon. Friend would say if I took up that attitude in this House. Surely nothing is more reasonable than that, when the Government find a new Clause or Amendment to be a good one, from whatever quarter it may come, they should give it favourable consideration?

Mr. LAMBERT: Do they understand it?

Sir A BOSCAWEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Government have accepted this without understanding it? Because the right hon. Gentleman does not understand it, it does not follow that we do not understand it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Explain it"]. I thought, after the Solicitor-General's speech, that the House did understand it. As I understand it, it means that in contracts for the letting of cottages since the passing of the Housing and Town Planning Act there are conditions, which are implied in Sections 14 and 15, requiring the landlord to put the cottage in a state fit for human habitation, and to keep it in such condition. That applies where a cottage it let, but, as is frequently the case in agriculture, cottages are occupied by workmen to whom there is no formal letting—they are occupied because they get the cottage gratis as part of their remuneration. There is, therefore, in these cases no obligation on the person who let the cottage either to put it into a state of repair fit for habitation or to maintain it. That is an obvious omission, and one which, I feel sure, every Member of the House would like to see remedied. I am advised that that is the sole purpose of this new Clause. Under the circumstances, it is not unreasonable that we should accept the Clause. I quite see the difficulty that arises where a new Clause is put down and accepted the next day. I realise that there should be some further opportunity for considering it in detail. In another form this Clause has been on the Paper for a week or ten days. I am willing that we shall recommit it, therefore.

Mr. INSKIP: Everybody agrees that it is right and proper that any house a labourer lives in should be in a condition fit for him to occupy it. But what the
right hon. Gentleman is doing here is that the moment this Act passes every tenant farmer will be obliged to put the houses which his workmen occupy in a state to comply with certain sections of the Housing and Town Planning Act. The burden will not fall upon the landlord. Some may say that it is the landlord's duty. The tenant may be a poor man, and may not have the money to rebuild what is really the landlord's house. A tenant might be giving up his tenancy and retiring in a year or two, but he will be compelled to put every cottage which his workmen occupy into a state of repair, and if he fails to do it, or is unable to find the money, the local authority may serve notice on him and do it at his expense. It may be said that the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this new Clause is a possible one. I suppose it is possible. It becomes intolerable when it is pursued in regard to Amendment after Amendment brought before the House. I think that this new Clause ought not to be added to the Bill, even if it is to be amended subsequently.

Mr. ACLAND: Any farmer at present charging a rent for a cottage is already, under the existing Act, under the liability to keep the cottage in a proper state of repair. Because he takes advantage of a certain provision which has been made by the Agricultural Wages Board in deciding what shall be regarded as benefits or advantages under a certain Clause of the Corn Production Act, and because they have said that under certain circumstances the occupation of a cottage from the employer may be regarded as such a benefit or advantage, limited to the amount of 3s., it seems to me entirely unreasonable that, because the farmer chooses to make a deduction from wages instead of charging the rent, he should be under no obligation to make the cottage fit for habitation. It is to correct that that this Amendment is being accepted by the Government. I am rather sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has promised to recommit the Bill on this, but that is a smaller matter.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I should not have a word of objection to urge if the facts were as the last speaker has described them. I do not know whether he is correct or not. It seems to me that his arguments are in strong disagreement with these of the right hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Lambert)sitting beside him. I want to probe the matter a little further. It is only with the greatest diffidence that I hesitate to accept a statement made by the Solicitor-General. This Clause was recommended to us on the ground that all it does is to provide that in a certain class of cases covered by the new Clause, where no rent is charged, there shall be security that the cottage shall be fit for human habitation. Is it really the case that where a house of any sort is inhabited in a rural district, and no rent is charged for it, under the existing law there is no power to close it? I find it very difficult to believe that. I was always under the impression that where, in an urban or rural district, a house could be shown not to be reasonably fit for human habitation, there are powers vested in the local authority by which that house could be closed at once. This new Clause contemplates a contract under which the house is to be inhabited. It may not be a contract to pay rent, but a contract that the house shall be part of the remuneration for work on a farm. Will the Solicitor-General tell me that it has not been held in the Courts time after time that it is an implied undertaking of any such contract that the house so let, whether for rent or not, shall be reasonably fit for human habitation? Unless I am authoritatively corrected, I am confident that, whether under the law of contract or the general law, there is no necessity for this Clause whatsoever, if it is not intended to do more than was stated by the Parliamentary Secretary.
It may be that the Clause is intended to impose a very much higher standard of obligation, and that under the particular Act introduced by the Clause there is a very much higher degree of obligation with regard to repairs. I am not prepared to say that I object to that higher obligation, but let us understand fully what it is. If it really imports a higher standard of obligation than can reasonably be expressed by the phrase "fit for human habitation," let it be fully understood. There are one or two rather peculiar circumstances with regard to this new Clause. I have seldom heard the Government accept an Amendment moved by private Members without the proviso that the language required a good deal of alteration. Here we have a Clause very difficult to understand, expressed in very legal language, and yet the Government accept not only the principle of the
Clause, but accept every word of its drafting. I look with envy on the drafters of this Clause. I wondered, after hearing it moved and seconded in very laconic speeches, which of the four hon. Members whose names are attached to it on the Paper has been so skilful in drafting it that it has immediately commanded the assent of the Government. As neither of my right hon. Friends has disclosed what may lurk in this Clause, I think we ought to have a further explanation before we accept it.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPE: I welcome the principle of this new Clause, because I think it is the first attempt that has been made to deal with the deplorable conditions of agricultural housing in this Bill or in the Housing Bill. As I have said before, the Housing Bill in no way touched or helped agricultural housing. I proposed amendments in Committee on this Bill, in order that it might be so drafted as to improve agricultural housing. At the same time, I think we should know clearly what we are doing in regard to this Clause and how it is going to operate, as there seems to be considerable confusion about it. If it is going to help to improve agricultural housing, I cordially welcome it. There is no doubt—and I speak with intimate knowledge— that in Scotland agricultural housing is not in a good state. In the report on agricultural housing in Scotland it was clearly stated that the housing was not in a good condition. Some of the reasons were given, and it was pointed out that in leaseholds many tenants accepted houses in a good state of repair. If this Clause is passed, as many of these houses throughout Scotland require repair, and are part of the leases, will the tenant farmer or the landowner have to repair them, or will they get Government assistance to do so? It is a very big question, and I should be very glad if the Secretary for Scotland would tell us in the case of leaseholds on whom will fall the burden of putting these cottages in a fair state of repair?

Mr. D. HERBERT: I think there is one point which shows that an attempt to deal with this matter of housing in a Bill of this kind at the last moment is almost hopeless. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), apparently thought that he gave a perfectly satisfactory answer to the
objection to this Clause that you would be throwing a very heavy liability in a number of cases on small tenant farmers. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is not quite as well acquainted as some of us unfortunately are, with the conditions in regard to some of these tenant farmers. There are many cases where a tenant farmer takes a farm on which there are a number of delapidated cottages not fit for human habitation according to the ordinary standard, and unoccupied at the time. That farmer being a good farmer and doing his land well requires more labour and when a man comes along he says, "I am quite prepared to pay your wages, but you must find your own cottage." He pays the full wages, and the man says, "I cannot get a cottage." The tenant then says, "There is a hovel there and if you do not mind practically open air life, but just a roof over your head, there it is." That is the position, and there is no question of that being taken into consideration as part of the wages, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think. You have got a tremendous shortage of houses in many agricultural districts. That is no the fault of the tenant farmer, and he ought not to have the burden thrown upon him of practically rebuilding cottages which are not fit for human habitation, but which many a healthy agricultural labourer is prepared, used as he is to an open-air life, to put up with for the sake of getting a good job.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: When this is passed, I think it will be the worst example we have of legislation by reference. I have been unable to obtain a copy of the Act of 1909, and I do not know what Sections 14 and 15 provide. I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will be good enough to answer the question put to him by the hon. and gallant Member (Sir J. Hope) and which seems to me to be one of some substance. I would also ask the Secretary for Scotland how will Sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 1909 affect the Bothy system which prevails in Scotland? I hope myself it will be affected favourably, because it is a system which, in many respects, is a bad system and gives bad housing conditions, and the sooner it is done away with and proper housing conditions given instead, the better. I hope that the right
hon. Gentleman will be able to indicate that that will be so.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not know if the attention of the House has been directed to the fact that, in addition to this new Clause, there is another new Clause on the next page—(Power for tenant to recover from landlord moneys expended on certain repairs to dwelling houses occupied by workmen)—standing in the name of the same hon. Gentleman, and which I am sure they will be able to explain quite as lucidly as this Clause. I really think they should be taken together.

Mr. SPEAKER: I shall have a ruling to give upon that when we reach it.

Mr. PRETYMAN: If I may venture to assume the nature of your ruling—

Mr. J. JONES: Why should you assume it?

Mr. PRETYMAN: I think I am entitled to argue on either assumption, and I elect, if the hon. Member will allow me, to argue on one particular assumption. In that case, it is right to say that the whole of the expenses of this proposal, whatever they may be, would be thrown on the tenant farmer, and by the last words the liability to put into habitable repair is taken off the back of the landlord and put on the employer. To put a matter of such a complicated character before the. House in an Amendment on which no legal opinion could be obtained by these interested, however good the object may be, is not the right way to do it. We cannot legislate in that manner, and by reference to all kinds of complicated subjects mixed up with other Acts of Parliament so that nobody can understand what the effect really is going to be. I do, as an agriculturist, object to agriculture being made a sort of football to be kicked about, and any sort or kind of burden or disability put upon it simply because anybody in this House thinks that somebody may be benefited. This proposal appears to be suitable to a Housing Bill. If there is a defect in the Housing Act, as suggested from the Front Bench, then the proper thing is to amend that Act, and not to introduce into this Bill, dealing with a totally different set of circumstances, something to amend another Act with which we have now nothing to do. However good the
object of this Amendment, I am bound to vote against it on the ground that this is not the proper place for it. We do not know what it means or what its effect will be. I really do not think we can be asked, as we were on the last Amendment, to recommit the Bill on this proposal. I think we must ask the Mover to withdraw, if he will do so, not because his proposal is necessarily going to do anything wrong or bad, but because the House does not understand it. One must vote against the Clause in its present form, however much we may sympathise with its object.

Mr. GEORGE EDWARDS: I think the Clause is perfectly plain. As I under stand, it is intended to ensure to the agricultural labourer a house fit to live in and not the wretched hovels, neither watertight or wind-tight, in which in many cases he is now compelled to live. There are complaints about the responsibility that is thrown on the shoulders of the tenant farmer, but the tenant farmer can at once relieve himself of that responsibility by saying to the landlord, "I no longer want these houses with my farm. You can keep them yourself and let them direct to the, workmen." The responsibility then will be thrown on the landlord. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Mr. INSKIP: The responsibility will not be thrown on the landlord, because the Clause provides that the man who is to put the house in repair is the employer,
who is the tenant farmer.

Mr. EDWARDS: I am much obliged for the interruption, but I repeat again that the tenant farmer can say to his landlord, "Keep your houses and let them to the men." [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] If he does not do that, is that any reason why a Clause of this sort should not be inserted in the Bill to ensure for the agricultural labourer a house fit to live in?

Sir F. BANBURY: We must carefully consider what we, are going to do on this Clause. The hon. Member who has just spoken told us that he thoroughly understands it. I certainly do not understand it and I am inclined to think that you, Sir, did not understand it when it was first moved. We have had explanations from the Solicitor-General and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland). The Solicitor-General told us that if a house was let to an agricultural labourer and no rent was charged, that therefore the local
authority was restricted in its action. As the Clause is drawn and only appeared to-day on the Paper, it is very difficult to ascertain whether that is so or not. As far as I know from my own experience, the local autherities—whether they have the power to do it or not I cannot say—do go round and do investigate into the condition of houses, and I have never heard of them saying, "Does the occupier of this house pay a rent, or does he receive it rent free as part of his service?" I have, always understood that if they find a house is not fit for habitation, they grant an order to close it. An hon. Friend has just handed me the Section in the Public Health Act, 1875, namely, Section 97, which reads:
Where the nuisance proved to exist is such as to render a house or building, in the judgment of the court, unfit for human habitation, the court may prohibit the using thereof for that purpose until, in its judgment, the house or building is rendered fit for that purpose; and on the court being satisfied that it has been rendered fit for that purpose the court may determine its previous order by another, declaring the house or building habitable, and from the date thereof such house or building may be let or inhabited.
There is a Section which is absolutely clear and distinct. It completely demolishes the argument of the Solicitor-General and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), and shows that as a matter of fact at the present moment there is a law in existence which will allow the local authority or the Court to close a house if it is unfit for human habitation. Nobody on either side of the House has the slightest objection to this Clause, or desires to say that a house not fit for human habitation should be allowed to be occupied, but what we are afraid of is this: If it had not been for the kindness of an hon. Friend I could not have put my finger upon the particular Section of the particular Act, but I was aware that as a magistrate I had given orders for closing houses, and that the local authority do come down, at any rate in my part of the world, and look into houses, and never ask whether rent is paid or whether they are held as a condition of service. What we are afraid of is that this Clause, is a camouflage, that it means to go very much further than this, and that it is brought in, not to render a house habitable, but probably to insist that all the most modern building laws shall be applied to cottages in the
country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Hon. Members say "No," but the only explanations we have had of the Clause— the Mover of it could not explain it—have been these of the Solicitor-General and the right hon. Member for Camborne.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Might I tell my right hon. Friend that the words of the Section of the Act of 1909 are that it shall be a condition that the house is at the commencement of the holding in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.

Sir F. BANBURY: I have been in the House a considerable number of years, and I recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. It. McNeill) said, the peculiarity of the acceptance by the Government of a Clause moved by a private Member, the private Member not understanding his own Clause. I have always been told by the Government in similar cases that there is no harm in the new Clause but it is superfluous, because the law as it already exists makes allowance for that. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Maclean), all that this Section does is to re-enact Section 97 of the Act of 1875, and if so, why introduce all these words, which may lead to conflict of opinion and litigation, and which will certainly tend to frighten people from buying land? All this that has taken place this afternoon, instead of promoting the production of food and increasing the production upon the land, will tend to prevent anybody having anything to do with land. There is no doubt about that. Whoever it is that pays for all these things, whether it be the landlord or the tenant, it all goes back to the land, and instead of helping agriculture, as the Prime Minister said we ought to do, what we are doing now is to put every obstacle in the way of people either owning land or renting land or having anything whatever to do with agriculture. As I have apparently found out that the statement of the Solicitor-General was incorrect, and that what he aimed at is already enacted by the law, I hope the Government will vote against this new Clause.

Mr. MUNRO: Perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words with regard to the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) before I deal with the
Scottish questions which have been addressed to me. I can hardly hope to succeed where my right hon. Friends have failed, but I would like to make clear to the right hon. Baronet if I can that the sole purpose, and, as I understand it, the sole effect, of this Clause is to bring houses which in substance are let into the same category as houses which are technically let under the Act of 1909. It is not a very large category. If the farmer charged a rent for the house instead of deducting a certain amount every week in respect of the tenancy, he would come under the 1909 Act, but he prefers to arrange matters in another way. Is there any reason why he should be treated differentially from other landlords or tenants who have houses to let simply because he adopts a different method of collecting his rent? I submit that there is no good reason for that distinction, which at present exists. What is the obligation to be laid upon him? It is to keep the house in reasonably fit repair. Is that an undue burden to put upon a tenant farmer or anybody else who lets the house to a tenant? I suggest that it is not. My right hon. Friend said—and he treated the matter as if it were a discovery—that there is in existence now machinery whereby these houses, if they are not reasonably fit for habitation, can be closed. I am well aware of it, both as a Minister and as a lawyer, but surely my right hon. Friend has forgotten that the object which one has in view is not to close these houses but to keep them open and in good repair. Accordingly, that remedy is not a complete remedy, and it does not produce the effect which we desire, namely, at a time when houses are scarce, to keep them open and at the same time to ensure that they are fit for human habitation.
I venture to put to the House that if the sole purpose and the effect of this new Clause is to bring into the existing category of houses dealt with under the 1909 Act the comparatively few cases where the tenant farmer secures his rent in a different way, then surely the purpose of the new Clause is not obscure, and it is a Clause which ought to commend itself to the House. If anything further need be said, I think it is this, that my right hon. Friend beside me has undertaken to recommit the Bill upon this new Clause, as upon a previous new Clause. The fullest opportunity will then be afforded
to the House of revising it if it is necessary, but this Clause, I would remind hon. Members, has been on the Order Paper for ten days at least. It has been altered slightly in its form, but it has been on the Order Paper for quite a number of days, and therefore I think my right hon. Friend has gone some distance to meet the wishes of the House in agreeing to recommit the Clause. Having assented to that proposal, and inasmuch as the Clause, I hope, is now perfectly clear, both in effect and intention, and as it affects only a limited number of cases, I hope the House may be able to come to a decision in the matter.

Mr. R. McNEILL: As the right hon. Gentleman is obviously defending this as a Government Clause, and as we are quite clear it was drafted by the official draftsman, is there any special reason why it was not put down as a Government Clause?

Mr. MUNRO: I really do not know whether my hon. Friend is correct in what he says regarding the draftsmanship of this Clause or not.

Mr. McNEILL: It is obvious.

Mr. MUNRO: I do not contradict the hon. Member, because I have no knowledge on the subject. But whether the Clause was drafted or not by the official draftsman, as my right hon. Friend said on a previous occasion, if a Clause commends itself on consideration to the Government as a good Clause, then, whether drafted by them or any hon. Member, it ought to be accepted. In regard to the questions put to me by my two colleagues from Scotland, I think it is obvious that the obligation in the first place would lie upon the tenant farmer. That is in answer to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Sir J. Hope). As regards the bothy system, I take it that the farmers or owners responsible for that system would, under this Clause, have to put their bothies into a fit and tenantable state of repair. I cannot conceive that an obligation so limited, so obvious, and so humane should be regarded as unduly oppressive or burdensome by any class of the community.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Secretary for Scotland seems to have forgotten the provisions of the existing Housing Act passed last year. Surely they cover cases
where cottages are not in a fit state of repair. Did we not then place the duty upon local authorities of seeing that cottages were put in a proper state of repair, and if the owner or person responsible did not put them into repair, the local authority in every case could put them in repair, and charge the person responsible with the cost? It seems to me you are attempting to deal here in an agricultural Bill with a subject which we have got to consider in relation to housing legislation, and as on Thursday of this week we are going to consider a third Housing Bill, introduced by the Ministry of Health—the whole of Part 1 deals with questions of this very kind—I really think the proper place where this could be thrashed out to bring it into terms with the many Housing and Town Planning Acts which have been passed in the last few years is in that Bill, and not here. There is one other thing I feel I must say. We are all agreed upon the intention of this Clause, but look at the drafting of it. I guarantee that any clever lawyer could drive a coach and four through it and render it absolutely inoperative any time he chose to take it into Court. Look at the governing words—
There shall be implied as part of the contract…the like conditions as would be implied under these provisions if "—
This form of drafting is getting very frequent in our legislation—deeming facts to be other than they are under certain conditions, putting in "would" and "if," and invariably when you use this sort of drafting the Section and the Article become inoperative once they are taken into Court. I believe that if this Clause is read a Second time, and is embodied in this Act, it will never once be put into operation, and it will be absolutely futile to carry out the purpose. I have no objection to it if Members want it put in, but this is not the proper way to get these houses repaired. The proper way to get them repaired—and we want to get them repaired—is to see that the Housing Acts are properly administered, and to amend them, if amendment is necessary.

Mr. J. JONES: Representing, as I do, a well-known agricultural constituency, I need make no apology for offering any observations upon this particular Clause. A good deal has been said about the
administration of the Housing Acts. Most Members of this House who are acquainted with the Housing problem in I industrial districts know the difficulty of administering the existing Housing Acts. How are we going to guarantee that the people shall have healthy houses in which I to live? We send inspectors round and we issue orders for the closing of houses under certain conditions. Is there any Member of a local authority in this House who can venture to suggest that these houses should be closed under existing conditions? Why, the thing is physical impossibility, and all that this Clause asks is that the tenants in rural areas shall have the same protection in law as the tenants in industrial areas now have. What right has the tenant got now? They can be put into any shed; they can be accommodated in any barn, merely for the purpose of providing rent, and, so far as we are concerned, we want to know why the housing problem in the rural areas has been neglected so much. If everybody agrees, as has been suggested in this House to-night, that the people ought to be decently housed, that the man in the rural area should have as good accommodation as the man in the industrial area, why has not that accommodation been provided?

Mr. PRETYMAN: They are provided.

Mr. JONES: They are not provided, or else a Clause like this would not find a place in a Bill of this character. In the rural districts of the country the people are being housed like swine. I happen to be related to people living in the rural areas, and during this past summer I have spent some of my time amongst my relations in the country.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I am, out of my own money, building good houses.

Mr. JONES: The right hon. Member is probably one of the exceptions, and he ought to be canonised. The hon. Member is often used as an excuse for people who are not as good as himself. When we come down to rural areas, what do we find? Overcrowding and insanitary conditions. I live in the East End of London, and I find in the rural districts of Essex and Sussex and all around, in so far as agricultural districts are concerned, that the people are worse housed even than they are in the East End of London. All that we are asking for in this Clause is the same protection for the agricultural worker as the industrial worker receives in the great industrial centres. Why the objection? Because the landlord knows, and the people who are mainly speaking on behalf of the landlord know, that he will have to foot the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER:" It is not for that. That is our objection."] We know what you will have to do at the finish. This is, after all, a defence of landlords by the landlords' representatives. Give the workman in the country the same protection as you give the workman in the town. I happen to be a member of a local authority in the East End of London. We have the power to close houses and to say that overcrowding shall not take place and that the people shall have sanitary conditions to live under; but we know we have no power to provide fresh houses for the people to live in. That is where we are hit, and the landlord knows it; and where the workman is bound to be the servant of a certain employer what chance has he of finding a fresh home, if he does not like the home in which he is at present living?

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes,29.

Division No. 347.]
AYES.
[8.7 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Breese, Major Charles E.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Barnett, Major R. W.
Briant, Frank


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Barnston, Major Harry
Bridgeman, William Clive


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Barrie, Charles Coupar
Brittain, Sir Harry


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Barrie Rt. Hen. H. T. (Lon'derry.N.)
Bromfield, William


Allen, Lieut-Colonel William James
Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M.S.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Cairns, John


Astbury, Lieut. Commander F. W.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Carew, Charles Robert S.


Atkey, A. R.
Bigland, Alfred
Carr, W. Theodore


Austin, Sir Herbert
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Casey, T. W.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Boles, Liout.-Colonel D. F.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Chadwick, Sir Robert


Barlow, Sir Montague
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Birm., W.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rose, Frank H.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Jephcott, A. R.
Royce, William Stapleton


Clough, Robert
Jesson, C.
Rutherford, Sir W. w. (Edge Hill)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Johnstone, Joseph
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Seager, Sir William


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk, George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Shorft, Rt. Hon. E.' (N'castle-on-T,)


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Kenyon, Barnet
Simm, M. T.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Kldd, James
Sitch, Charles H.


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Davies, Thomas (Cirancester)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Spencer, George A.


Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lawson, John J.
Stanton, Charles B.


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Lewis, T, A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Stewart, Gershom


Dixon, Captain Herbert
Lloyd, George Butler
Sturrock, J. Leng


Edge, Captain William
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P,
Sugden, W. H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)
Sutherland, Sir William


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Loseby. Captain C. E.
Swan, J. E.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Taylor, J.


Entwistle. Major C. F.
Lunn, William
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenhanr)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D.(Midlothian)
Thomas, Brlg.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Maddocks, Henry
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mallalieu, F. W.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Gardiner, James
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.|


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Gilbert, James Daniel
Mitchell, William Lane
Tillett, Benjamin


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Moles, Thomas
Tootill, Robert


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Molson, Major John Eisdale
Townley, Maximilian G.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Morelng, Captain Algernon H.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Turton, E. R.


Greig, Colonel James William
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Waddington, R.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morris, Richard
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Walton, J. (York, W.R., Don Valley)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Murray, Lleut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hallwood, Augustine
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Waring, Major Walter


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Myers, Thomas
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Neal, Arthur
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hancock, John George
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Whitla, Sir William


Hartshorn, Vernon
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Haslam, Lewis
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Hayward, Major Evan
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Parker, James
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.J


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Hills, Major John Waller
Pennefather, De Fonfolanque
Wilson, Colonel Leslie D. (Reading)


Hirst, G. H.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pratt, John William
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Hood, Joseph
Prescott, Major W. H.
Wintringham, T.


Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Reid, D. D.
Wise, Frederick


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Remer, J. R.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Howard, Major S. G.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Young, Lieut. Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Rodger, A. K.



Irving, Dan
Rogers, Sir Hallewell
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Captain Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


NOES.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Ormshy-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Rae, H. Norman


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Hurd, Percy A.
Starkey, Captain John R.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Stevens, Marshall


Cautley, Henry S.
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Courthope, Major George L.
Martin, Captain A. E.
Wolmer, Viscount


Gardner, Ernest
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.



Glanville, Harold James
Morrison, Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Nail, Major Joseph
Captain Sir Beville Stanler and


Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Sir F. Banbury.


Question put, and agreed to.

Proposed Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Qualifications for members of Agricultural Committees.)

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section seven, Sub-section (4), paragraph (d,) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1919, no person shall exercise any powers under the provisions of this Act as a member of a county agricultural committee referred to in the said Sub-section unless he has a practical, commercial, technical, or scientific knowledge of agriculture, and no such person shall be interested financially, either directly or indirectly, in any matters dealt with by the said committee.—[Mr. Pretyman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This proposed new Clause carries its meaning pretty clearly on the face of it. Under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1919, county agricultural committees were to be appointed which were to be committees of the county councils, and were under the Act given certain powers. A difficulty has arisen with the county councils. The existing Act of 1919, Section 7, Sub-section (3), says:
(d) "for the appointment in the case of the council of every county (other than the London County Council) of such persons only as have practical, commercial, technical, or scientific knowledge of agriculture or an interest in agricultural land."
This clearly shows the intention of this House that these county agricultural committees should be composed of persons who have these particular qualifications. It is obvious where you are dealing with such matters as to whether or not land is properly cultivated, whether or not buildings are in tenantable repair, and other agricultural purposes, that it is very necessary that these qualifications should be possessed by these who are to adjudicate on these various matters. I understand that the Board of Agriculture have under the existing Act used their powers so far as they could. In certain cases, however, in certain counties where agriculturists are in a great minority—I believe in one case, that of Monmouthshire particularly—persons have been appointed who have not the required qualifications. When the Board of Agriculture have made representations and endeavoured to put the existing Act into operation, the County Council concerned has preferred its own course.
There does not appear to be any actual power vested in the Board of Agriculture which can override the wishes of a County Council in this matter. That was perhaps serious enough as the matter stood before the introduction of this Bill, but as it is proposed to give very considerable additional powers under this Bill it would really be intolerable, if these powers, which require in these exercising their technical knowledge, should be entrusted to people who clearly do not possess the qualifications. Therefore this Amendment has been put down. It is, I may say, urgently desired by the tenant farmers and the farming community generally, because they feel if they are to have any confidence in the action of these committees—and they look upon them in any case with considerable anxiety in view of the powers entrusted to them—if these bodies are to exercise any of these powers they must, at any rate, have the qualifications which are referred to here.

Lieut-Colonel ROYDS: I beg to second the Motion.
In addition to the explanation given by my right hon. Friend the Amendment also provides that no members of the committees shall be interested financially, either directly or indirectly, in any matters dealt with by the committee. That is not provided for by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act of last year. I am sure the House will agree that if we are, as we ought to have, confidence in these agricultural committees it is not only essential that they should be acquainted with agriculture, but that the members should not in any way directly or indirectly, personally be interested financially in any business that comes under their review. They have under this Bill very important additional powers. Therefore, the new Clause attempts to procure that the members shall all be agriculturists, and to deprive them of the power of exercising any of the provisions of the Bill unless they are agriculturists. My right hon. Friend said it was clearly intended when the committees were set up that the members should be agriculturists. It is certainly not so now, for in several instances other persons have been appointed. In view of the important powers entrusted under this Bill, and if these concerned are to have the confidence of the agricultural community, owners and occupiers alike.
it is essential that they should be agriculturists, and not directly or indirectly interested financially.

Sir R. WINFREY: The Amendment seems to me to be a most dangerous one, and to shut out from the committees the type of man that we have got to help us in the small holdings movement, and in the settlement of the ex-service men upon the land. Perhaps the two hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken have forgotten for the moment that the small holdings committees are sub-committees of the agricultural committees. The subcommittee is charged with the duty of settling the ex-service men upon the land, and, speaking personally, I can say it has been of great use to us to have one or two of these ex-service men on these committees. I am afraid that with what I feather as to the advantage of this proposed new Clause that there may be the danger of shutting out the class of man to which I have referred. Therefore I trust the Government will consider very carefully before they accept this Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I quite appreciate the objects of my right hon. Friend in moving this Amendment. I certainly think that these important duties should be carried out, as far as possible, by people who understand agriculture. It is perfectly true that when the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act was passed a year ago it was laid down that the members appointed by county councils upon the local agricultural committees must have some practical, commercial, technical, or scientific knowledge of agriculture, or an interest in agricultural land. These last words were added to bring in as persons qualified for the agricultural committees landowners who might be large owners of land, but who might have no practical or scientific knowledge of agriculture. We inserted these words in order to meet a request made by landowners, and we thought it was only fair to do so. Only in a very few cases has advantage been taken of the ambiguity of these words, and there are certain councils who have put on persons who have no practical knowledge or other knowledge of agriculture, and whose only interest in it is that they say, "Well, we are interested in it."
Generally speaking, the county agricultural committees have been very well formed. In the great majority of cases the members appointed by the county councils have been, for the most part, either landowners, land agents, or tenant farmers, and it has been found necessary to add a number of representatives of labourers in order that they should have a fair representation. There are, I think, three, or at the utmost four, counties where we have great doubts as to how far they have complied with the Statute, and who have appointed persons whose interest in agricultural land is exceedingly doubtful, and we have attempted to deal with them. In one case we said, "We do not think the persons you have put on are the best persons," and they answered, "That is a matter entirely at our discretion, and you have no right to interfere." We thought that we could not take the matter beyond that. In two other cases we have asked for an assurance in writing that the provisions of the Statute have been complied with, and we received that assurance.
We have no power to insist that the strict letter of the Act of last year shall be carried out. Generally speaking, however, the Act has been well carried out, and there are only three or four cases where it has not been carried out. We retain the right to nominate one-third of the members of the county agricultural committees and of all sub-committees to which we delegate powers. Where we have been doubtful as to the qualifications of the county council nominees we have been very careful to put on a very stiff body of bonâ fide agriculturists. There is not an agricultural committee on which agriculture is not fully represented. Therefore I do not think the fears which have been expressed by my hon. Friends are really anything like so serious as might be supposed. There have been no objections raised, except in three or four cases, and even in these cases we have stiffened up the representation of the committee by our nominees. I could not accept the Amendment, which would be a tremendous interference with local government, and as my hon. Friend (Sir R. Winfrey) has pointed out, it would bar ex-service men from serving on small holdings sub-committees and the county agricultural committees.
It has been said that this matter is of far more importance, because much greater duties are being delegated to these committees than before. That is so, but the greater number of these powers are powers of the Minister, which he can delegate or not as he pleases. These are the powers which arise under Clause 4 and the Minister may delegate them or he may not. What we propose to do is to trust these committees which we have set up and delegate powers to them in the first instance, and reserve other powers. At the same time, if we are of opinion that there is any county agricultural committee which is not properly carrying out its work, and whose work is being influenced by people with political views with no agricultural knowledge, and who are not really acting in accordance with the letter and spirit of last year, we should not hesitate to withdraw these powers and act ourselves.
I claim in the first instance that we should give these agricultural committees a trial. I believe in the great majority of cases they will carry out their duties exceedingly well, and oven where persons have been put on who, strictly speaking, cannot be said to conform to the conditions of the Act of last year, I am not at all certain that the introduction of a certain amount of blood from outside will not be in some cases exceedingly useful and may tend to more vigorous action. For these reasons, and because I do not myself distrust the county agricultural committees, because I believe in most cases they will do their duties properly and because we can withdraw the powers we delegate to them, I do not see my way to accept the first part of the Amendment. As regards the second part, I think hon. Members will agree on looking at the words of the new Clause that they are far too wide. The words are:
No such person shall be interested financially, either directly or indirectly, in any matters dealt with by the said council.
That would bar out every landlord, tenant farmer, and nearly every agricultural labourer, because the matters they will deal with will be exclusively, as far as I know, questions relating to the land. What I think my hon. Friend meant was that they should not act in any specific matter in which they are financially
interested, and for that contention I think, there are reasonable grounds. I do not think it is necessary to legislate on the question. We have dealt with it already under these Orders we have made, I mean the Cultivation Orders, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. There is in our Cultivation of Land Order now a provision that no member of an agricultural executive committee shall take part in any decision of the committee which relates to the land of which he is the owner, the occupier, or the agent of the owner or occupier. We should be quite prepared to insert a similar provision in the Orders which we issue under this Bill by which agricultural committees will be authorised to exercise the powers of the Minister. I am prepared to give an undertaking that such an Order shall be issued barring any individual from taking part in any transaction in which he is directly or indirectly personally interested. We have done it in the case of the Cultivation Orders, and I am prepared to issue a similar Order in this case.

Mr. PRETYMAN: But the words are different. In the Order which my right hon. Friend is going to repeat there is merely a reference to the owner, occupier, or agent In this case the words are much stronger. They refer to direct or indirect financial interests. Which form is the right hon. Gentleman going to-adopt?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I quite agree that the words of my right hon. Friend are stronger. I cannot lay down precisely the words we will use, but I am entirely in agreement with the object he has in view. We want to bar out any transaction in which an interested party can be called upon to take a decision in his own case.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: Would members of agricultural committees undertaking farming operations personally for their committee be covered by this?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am quite prepared to consider the issue of Orders in the widest possible sense, but of course I cannot accept the words of the Amendment, which go much too far. I can assure my right hon. and hon. Friends we are quite at one with the object they have at heart, and we will endeavour to carry it out fully in the Orders which will be issued.

Mr. LANE-FOX: I must say I heard with some regret of the absolute inability of the Government to meet the point raised in the first part of this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that if there is one thing which will make control ineffective, it is an idea that it is going to be exercised by people who do not understand the business and are amateurs with really no authority. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the Ministry are going to delegate powers to these committees in the hope that they would do their best, and if, in the opinion of the Ministry, they are not doing that, then the powers are to be taken away. Surely that is a far greater interference with local government than that suggested in the new Clause, which seeks to provide that the committee shall be so constituted as to be capable of doing this work. The agricultural community would resent interference from Whitehall far less if they knew that every possible means had been taken to make these committees thoroughly efficient.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not wish to press this new Clause to a Division if the Government do not desire to accept it. I think my right hon. Friend is aware that the feeling of the agricultural community is very strong on this matter. I myself realise the difficulty which he has in dealing with very technical matters, and which will increase if the personnel of these Committees be unsatisfactory. Still, if he does not care to accept the new Clause, that is his responsibility. He must, howover, remember that when we come to the question of control, we shall deal with the Committees as they are constituted here and not as they would be constituted if the new Clause were accepted. I am prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking, as far as regards the latter part of the Clause, that he will issue Orders which will be, if not in exactly the same words as the Clause, will at least carry out their full intention.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): The next Clause on the Paper— (Power for tenant to recover from landlord monies expended on certain repairs to dwelling houses occupied by workmen) —standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. W. R.
Smith), and the first Clause of the series in the name of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sir R. Thomas)—(Constitution of Board of Agriculture for Wales)—are outside the scope of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Establishment of Wages Committees in Wales.)

Sub-section (1) of Section five of the Act of 1917 shall not apply to Wales, and in lieu thereof the provisions contained in the Second Schedule of the Act of 1917 shall apply with respect to Wales as they apply with respect to Scotland with the substitution of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries for the Board of Agriculture for Scotland.—[Sir R. Thomas.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir R. THOMAS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I very much regret that the first of the series of new Clauses which stand in my name has been ruled out of Order. Of course, I am bound by the ruling of the Chair, but, in passing, I would like to say that had we in Wales been in a similar position to Scotland in the matter of having a Secretary, we should not now be in the unhappy position of having had this first new Clause, the most important of the series, ruled out of order. I hope the Government will take notice of the unsatisfactory way in which Wales has been treated in the matter of this legislation. In order not to deprive Scotland of her rights, I have been compelled to alter this Clause slightly from the form in which it appears on the Order Paper. The Clause is down in my own name, but I am speaking here in support of it as the hon. secretary of the Welsh National Party. It was because I wanted to economise in printing that I did not append the full list of Welsh Members, numbering in all 36 and consisting of Coalition Liberals, Unionists and Labour Members, to the Clause. We, the Welsh National Party, made a request to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of the Board of Agriculture months ago to take this matter into favourable consideration. It is a national demand. It is not only put forward by the Welsh National Party as a whole. That is not a small matter. It is something the Government should not turn aside lightly, because very careful note is taken of these matters in Wales and some day, perhaps not just now—for the Government are not at the moment in need of the help of
Members—they may be in need even of the few votes which the Principality can use in this House. I have said that it is a national demand from the representatives of Wales—Liberal. Unionist and Labour—a united demand. A resolution was passed in the Welsh party advocating this Clause. That was sent to my right hon. Friend by myself some six months ago. He replied very courteously, as he always does, that it would receive his consideration. I brought it forward in the Committee on the Bill, and the favourable consideration was that it was turned down, and turned down on the ground—these are the words of my right hon. Friend—that:
If there were n separate. Ministry for Wales, it would be reasonable to have a separate Wages Board, but as there is not, it would be most unfortunate to have a separate Wages Board.
Why? My right hon. Friend does not tell us why it would be unfortunate. Is it unfortunate to comply with the demand of a nation? Why should he say that it is unfortunate? It may be inconvenient, but I do not see how it can be unfortunate. It is unfortunate if he does not comply with our request, it is true, but surely it cannot be unfortunate that we are making this demand. The Welsh National Farmers' Union represents a body of some 40,000 smallholders, with small holdings under 50 acres. We are in Wales fundamentally different in the matter of agriculture from England. My right hon. Friend, although a Welshman himself, and, as I know perfectly well, a lover of his country, is blind to the fact that Wales is different from England. If I fail to prove that Wales is different from England, then I admit there is no substance in my Clause; but we are different. I am not going to deal now with the question of language. We know how different we are from England in that respect. We are the only country in the British Isles that has its own language that it makes any use of. We are more of a nation than any outside England; we are more a nation than Scotland, certainly. One of my hon. Friends from Scotland laughs, but I am quite sure that he cannot address the House in Gaelic, and I am afraid that he is not a true Scotsman if he cannot speak his country's language. I am not, however, speaking of Wales in that sense, but from the purely agricultural point of view. We
are a nation of smallholders, just as Scotland is a nation of smallholders. Scotland has its separate Board of Agriculture, and its separate Wages Board. We cannot get a Board of Agriculture, because we have no Secretary for Wales, but why cannot we have a Wages Board? I think it will be admitted that the fact of our not having a separate administration does not preclude our having a separate Wages Board. Therefore, I would ask my right hon. Friend, when he replies, to explain why it is unfortunate that he cannot grant this request which is made so unanimously?
The experience of the Welsh farmer on this Central Wages Board is, in the words of my right hon. Friend, very unfortunate. I think I am right in saying that there are in this country about thirty-nine district committees, and of these thirty-nine Wales has six. The fact is, however, that these district committees have no power; the power is vested in the Central Wages Board. We all send representatives to the Central Wages Board; but what is their position? When representations are made by the Welsh representatives on that Central Board, we are in such a hopeless minority that no notice whatever is taken of them. Our vote is quite ineffective, and, as the English members have very little knowledge of Welsh conditions, the general rule is that whatever is brought forward by the representatives of Wales is disregarded entirely. The result is that there is a very strong feeling in Wales on this question, and I would seriously put it to my right hon. Friend that he should consider the question of granting this reasonable demand—a demand which, I repeat, is made by a united Welsh National Party of all shades of opinion, and which is made by the Welsh National Farmers' Union. I have here resolutions which have been passed since this Bill was in Committee. During the Recess Welsh farmers have held meetings all over Wales, and have passed resolutions demanding that this, amongst other things, should be granted. I hope that my right hon. Friend has something more to say as a reason against granting this request than that it is unfortunate. I hope he has some tangible reason to give. Wales is a very peaceably inclined country; we are long-suffering, as one of my hon. Friends points out. I
would like to remind my right hon. Friend, however, that Ireland was long-suffering for a great number of years. We are very similar to the Irish in blood and in temperament. We are a sentimental people. We can exercise a great deal of forbearance; but there is a limit, and I warn the Government, I warn my right hon. Friend—and I am not speaking without knowledge—that there is a limit to forbearance even in Wales. I would strongly urge him not to disregard in this summary fashion the sentiment of is whole nation, a sentiment of which he is perfectly well aware. As a Member of this Government, however, I am afraid he is overruled, and I am very much afraid that the Prime Minister also is overruled, because his sentiments, surely, must be in favour of a Clause which gives this small measure of justice to his country.

Mr. E. WOOD: On a point of Order. I am in full sympathy with the Clause of my hon. Friend opposite, but may I ask your direction as to this: I was led by my hon. Friend's observations to look up the report of the Debate on this point in Committee, when this Amendment was moved in the same form. The Clause proposes to substitute the word "Wales" for "Scotland." The point of Order was taken upstairs by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardine (Lieut. - Colonel A. Murray)—who is not in the House at the moment—that the effect of that was really to turn what was supposed to be, to use his phrase, the enfranchisement of Wales—

Sir R. THOMAS: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but he was not in the House when I made an explanation of that. I explained that I had met that point by altering the wording of my present Clause to meet it.

Mr. WOOD: If that is so, I apologise to my hon. Friend. I was not able to be in the House when he moved the Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel PARRY: I bog to second the Motion. My hon. Friend has made a very complete case, and there is no need for me to say very much on the matter. He quoted a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman when he rejected the Amendment in Committee, and the word used then, I believe, was "unfortunate." Before that the Parliamentary Secretary used these words:
I think it would be most inconvenient to have a separate Wages Board.
I suppose that is because we have not a Ministry of Agriculture in Wales. Perhaps some day we shall rise to that high estate of possessing a Minister for Agriculture in Wales. In the meantime we should like something to be going on with, and I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Clause. The objection to it is not a very strong one. Whether the word used be "inconvenient" or "unfortunate," it is not putting the case very high, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, whose sympathy for Wales is so well known to us all, to use his skill and ingenuity to get round this difficulty. My hon. Friend has referred to the fact that you have a delegation of some powers from the Central Wages Board to six district committees in Wales. This is an admission that you have to delegate certain powers to Wales, at any rate. I agree that it is done in England as well, but certainly you have six special districts dealing with Welsh wage questions. They have to report and refer everything up to this committee. I think it sits in London. The district committees have full knowledge of all the facts of the district, and they know all the local conditions, and yet these questions have to be referred up here to a body that really can have no local knowledge of the difficulties of the situation. I submit, therefore, that, in view of all the different circumstances—and they are many—arising in regard to the industry of agriculture in Wales, it is important to have persons living in the district, knowing the people and understanding the language, who can deal with these questions, and I trust the Government will see their way to accept the Clause, which I think is a very reasonable one.

9.0 P.M.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am very sorry I cannot see my way to accept this Clause, not that I am in any way deficient in sympathy, as my hon. Friends know, with the national aspirations of Wales, but, as I said in Committee, we have not got a separate Ministry of Agriculture for Wales. An Amendment was put down to create one. It is outside the scope of the Bill, and therefore cannot be debated. But I hold, not that it would be very unfortunate, because I cannot see, reading my own speech—a very interesting occupation—that I ever used the word "unfortunate." [HON. MEMBERS: "Incon-
venient."] Exactly. I say that when you have got one Ministry for England and Wales, to have a separate Wages Board for Wales would be an exceedingly inconvenient, and, I will add, an expensive arrangement, and under these circumstances I really must ask my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment. They, of course, are perfectly right, if they so desire, to ask for a separate Ministry for Wales. That should be embodied, I suppose, in a separate Bill. If there were a separate Bill they might properly ask for a separate Wages Board. Really the two things go together, and I can see no reason whatever for granting a separate Wages Board when there is no separate Ministry. The complaint my hon. Friends make, that though they have District Wages Boards they are constantly over-ruled by the Central Board, is a grievance that they share with every county in England. There are 39 District Wages Boards, and six of them are in Wales. They are all treated exactly alike. English counties make precisely the same complaint, and I do not see, therefore, that that is any reason whatever for asking for a separate Wages Board for Wales. I suggest to my hon. Friends that they should accept the situation that so long as there is no separate Ministry there cannot be a separate Wages Board.
My hon. Friends say Wales is a long-suffering country, and the time will come when even gallant little Wales will kick over the traces. I do not believe for a moment there will be any trouble in Wales because they have not got a separate wages board. There may be other things that Wales wants and that Wales ought to have which are really important national institutions, but to suggest that there is going to be serious trouble because they cannot get a separate wages board, though they are treated precisely the same as English counties, is really going too far. It is not true, as my hon. Friends have suggested, that I having also national aspirations, am overruled and never do anything for the benefit of the country. On this very Bill I accented an Amendment moved, I think, by the hon. Member (Mr. Haydn Jones) that in all cases of arbitration, where a knowledge of the Welsh language was required, the arbitrator should be a man who under-
stood the Welsh language. I am always only too anxious to meet the special local conditions arising in Wales, especially in connection with the Welsh language. I cannot think there is any case made out for this Clause. Hon. Members have not got a separate Welsh Ministry at present, nor do I know that they ever will, but I am not arguing that for or against at present. We do all we can to decentralise our work at the Ministry of Agriculture. We have got our special Welsh office at Aberystwyth, under a very eminent Welshman, and all Welsh questions of local interest are dealt with, not from London, but from that Welsh office. In every way we are trying, as far as we can, to meet Welsh national aspirations. Really, to ask for a separate wages board when you have not a separate Ministry is a most inconvenient course to take, and although I realise that hon. Members may feel it necessary to press the matter to a Division, I can hold out no hope whatever that the Government can accept this Clause.

Mr. ACLAND: In the interest of truth, and as the only member of the Wages Board here present, I may perhaps be allowed to make two observations. Since the Board was formed there has never been a question that I remember in which the Welsh counties or committees have wanted something done, and have been overruled by the representatives of England. There have never been any wants expressed separate from the wants of England. Some Welsh counties are very much the same in their character and wants as English counties, and some English counties are practically just as much smallholding counties as some Welsh counties, and there has never been a single case in which you could say the representatives of England wanted one thing and the representatives of Wales wanted another. Therefore I do not think, if you read through the whole of the Minutes, you could ever say there had been any injustice to Wales because Wales had been overruled by England. The second fact is that of course there have been cases where one Welsh county has wanted one thing and other Welsh counties have wanted another thing, and the Board in their wisdom or unwisdom have had to come to a decision. But that would have happened in any case whether the Board was composed of representatives of England or represpn-
tatives from Wales only. They would have to use their common sense where one District Wages Committee asks for one thing which is not in accordance with what another District Wages Committee desires.
It is a fact, as the Minister has said, that possibly the Board is to blame that they have ridden rather too hard the necessity for unanimity in some cases. We have tried to get something like unanimity in the standard of wages and something like unanimity in the standard of overtime and the method of paying for overtime, and also in the hundred and one other things we had to regulate, and there has been a very general complaint from the district wages committees that their particular views, which have seemed to suit them, have been disregarded by the Board, which has laid down some general line applicable to the whole country. I can assure the movers of this Amendment that this feeling has been even more strongly felt by district, wages committees in England than by district wages committees in Wales. To a very considerable extent we have been trying to mend our ways as far as we can, and in matters where it seemed possible to have some variation suitable to the circumstances we have been doing our bust by consulting the local district wages committees The fact of the matter is, and I now address myself to the movers of this Amendment, that so long as Welsh Liberal Members and Welsh Liberals generally are as absolutely faithful supporters of the Government as they recently declared themselves to be it is utterly impossible for them to get any of the concessions for which they are asking. The Minister in charge of this Bill knows perfectly well that, although the Welsh Members may possibly go into the Lobby against the Government in this matter, and the vast battalion who have not heard the arguments will go into the Lobby and swamp their vote, yet in 99 cases out of a 100 the Welsh Members can be relied upon to vote with the Government upon anything. That is not the way to get things in this House, and the sooner the Welsh Members realise that the better.

Mr. E. WOOD: I do not know that I need follow my right hon. Friend in using this Amendment as a peg on which to hang the advocacy of the peculiar form of Liberalism that is at present rather-
meagrely supported in the House and in the country. I rise to express my regret that the Parliamentary Secretary has not seen his way to meet my hon. Friends from Wales rather more generously. I was disappointed by the arguments by which he justified his refusal. It will be within the recollection of the House that his main point was that it was impossible to grant Wales a separate wages board owing to the fact that there was no separate Ministry of Agriculture for Wales. After giving as much thought as I could to the matter, I entirely fail to trace the connection between the two, because it is one of the complaints among farmers, and it has of ton been expressed by agricultural bodies, and admitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, that the Ministry of Agriculture has no authority over the Wages Board, which is a statutory body. If that be so, I fail to see what damage is done to an authority, which admittedly does not exist, by the establishment of another Wages Board in Wales which, ex, hypothesi, the Ministry of Agriculture would be able to control as little as it controls the Central Wages Board in England.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the inconvenience of the arrangement. The inconvenience of the Ministry of Agriculture, very little regard being had to the inconvenience caused to the people affected by the Wages Board's decisions in Wales. On that point I would like to follow a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) who has the advantage of inside knowledge of the working of the Central Wages Board. I do not deny that he and his colleagues have a very difficult task, and I have no doubt that they have always endeavoured to discharge it to the best of their ability, and to hold the scales as even as they may; but T do know, and it. is admitted, that a great deal of trouble— well ill-founded or well founded, I am not concerned to say—has been caused by the feeling in the districts that in a matter that essentially demands local touch, inadequate appreciation is given to local committees, and that the thing is over centralised. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had had more complaints from Wales than from Yorkshire or from any other English county. That may be per fectly true. If I had my way I should prefer to see the whole of the work of the Wages Board far more decentralised in the districts. I would like to see the
counties of England grouped under District Boards and the powers of the Wages Board very largely given to these District Boards. Because I cannot get that, it is no reason why I should not support my hon. Friends from Wales when they come before the House with a very clear claim on what is a national division in respect of Wales. For that reason I shall support my hon. Friends if they go to a Division, and I hope that my English friends will do the same as an example of what we ultimately hope to get in England.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: This is not a political question. It is not a controversial question. It is a national question so far as we are concerned in Wales. The Mover of the Clause pointed out that the Welsh National party, the Coalition Members, the Conservative Members and the Labour Members are unanimous in their demand so far as this Clause is concerned. I do not see, as a trade union leader, why the farm labourers in Wales should be treated different from other workers in other industries in Wales. If you take the steel industry, which extends from Scotland down to Wales, we have our own Board in Wales and we deal with Welsh conditions and Welsh wages. In England you find exactly the same thing. They have a 'Board in England. If you go to Scotland you find a. Board there. I canot see why the farm labourers in Wales should come up to a Central Wages Board in order to deal with their wages and conditions of labour. The farmers and farm labourers in Wales would prefer to do their own business in their own country rather than be contaminated by coming to England. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I know something about Wales, and hon. Members may be surprised to know that in several of the colliery districts, and in other industrial districts, the Welsh people carry on their negotiations at the present day in Welsh. They can express themselves in the Welsh language far better than in the English language, and I can quite see the hardship and difficulty of a Welsh representative coming to England and having to express himself to English people in the English language. Very often they make a "bloomer." They often cannot express themselves in English as they can in the national language. The Government is
putting Wales into exactly the same position as Ireland, unless you can meet us in some of the demands which we put forward. We are a small nation, but our soul is stupendous. This is not a political question, not a controversial question. There is nothing in it. It is simply allowing us as a small nation to do our own things in our own way. That is what we ask. Leave us alone. I appeal to the Solicitor-General to think over the arguments of the Mover of the Clause and the claim of this brave little nation, and accept this Clause.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: I listened with considerable surprise to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland). He said that as a member of the Wages Board he had not received more complaints from Wales than from English counties. Since this Bill has been before the Committee I have been down in Wales, and I have been called to task by my Constituents for supporting this measure, simply because they feel that no step is too extreme to take unless Wales is recognised for separate treatment in the matter of Wages Boards and also a Land Court for Wales.

Mr. ACLAND: There is some substance in that.

Mr. JONES: There is some substance also in the demand for a National Wages Board. The right hon. Gentleman is speaking as an English Member, but I am speaking as a Welsh Member. Our farmers complain that it does not matter a pin what the Wages Board in Wales recommends to the central body, the central body over-rides its decision. Why not give autonomy to Wales in this matter? I agree with the Member for Ripon (Mr. Wood), it is not possible for Welsh Members to be more clear than he in the expression of their views. We want autonomy in this matter. The only reason alleged against it is that it would be inconvenient. I fail to see that we require a seperate Board of Agriculture in Wales in order to get a separate Wages Board. Why should there not be two, three, or four separate Wages Boards? The right hon. Gentleman takes pride in the fact that he has delegated certain business from his own board to a separate office in Aberystwith, and set an eminent Welshman to preside over that office. Why not do the same with the Wages Board? I am using no threat, but unless
this demand is conceded you will never carry conviction to the mind of the Welsh farmer or to the Welsh labourer that you are dealing justly. Do not let us ask in vain for a thing that is mere elementary justice. I was asked to attend a meeting to give an account of my stewardship. They made it clear that unless Wales got what they regard as their just demands they would be voting against the Government at the next election. They look upon the Government at present as being in a unique position. There ought to be agreement. There is a Coalition Government. Here is a question on which we ought to be united. It is mere elementary justice that a country which has a separate language and separate conditions of agriculture should be denied this elementary justice. I appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment.

Lieut. - Colonel MURRAY: I hope that the Government will reconsider the decision at which they have arrived. If there were any practical difficulties to be urged against this Clause something might be said for the view of the Government, but the speech of the hon. Member for Ripon disposed of that. There is no practical objection, but national sentiment is involved, and as a Scot I support my Welsh colleagues in this matter. We from Scotland have to fight in this House for measures very much of a similar nature as that before the House, and I shall be prepared to support this Amendment. But there is one question to the Lord Advocate before I make up my mind. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General will remember that in Committee the hon. Baronet who has moved this Amendment came forward with a proposition to carry out the object which he had in view, but in doing so to deprive us of our Board of Agriculture in Scotland. I am glad to say that some of us were able to prevent them at the time from doing that, but if the Clause as it is on the Paper in achieving that object would deprive us of our Board—

Sir E. POLLOCK: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member was in the House when the explanation was given that the Clause has been modified from the form in which it was introduced.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I would ask the Lord Advocate whether he is satisfied from the Scottish point of view that the
Amendment of the hon. Baronet will leave us the Board of Agriculture in Scotland?

Mr. MORISON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to give the assurance that that is so. Our Board of Agriculture would not be touched.

Captain FITZROY: It is very difficult to understand the attitude of the Government. They are only creating difficulties for themselves, if this Bill is going to be successful it must give as much satisfaction as possible to all the different sections of the country, and above all things, secure confidence. I propose to support the demand of the Welsh Members for a separate. Wages Board for Wales. Our great trouble in England has arisen from exactly the same reasons as these given by the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. Our complaint has been that instead of the Central Wages Board considering, as was intended under the Corn Production Act, recommendations made to them by the various District Wages Boards, they have taken upon themselves, without any recommendations coming from the District Wages Board, to make new recommendations. That has been one of the chief complaints with regard to the action of the Central Wages Board. Though, of course, many parts of it have agricultural conditions very much like these in England, Wales is essentially a country where a great many smallholders exist under different conditions, and obviously when recommendations come down from the Central Wages Board in London, without any request from the District Boards for increased wages or shorter hours, as the case may be, they create dissatisfaction and want of confidence on the part of the agriculturists in Wales. When the right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot set up this Wages Board in Wales because there is no Minister of Agriculture in Wales, I fail to see what connection that has with the matter. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Ministry of Agriculture in England has no control over the Central Wages Board, and how in the world has it anything to do with a Wages Board for Wales. It cannot be necessary to set up a Ministry of Agriculture in Wales in order to set up a Welsh Wages Board. I hope the hon. Member will carry the Amendment to a Division, and I propose to support him.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I hope we may consider this question from perhaps rather wider bearings than have been presented by some of the speeches to-night. I recognise, as my right hon. Friend does, the appeal which has been made on behalf of Wales as a nation. I am quite sure that all English Members in this House are prepared to recognise the great position that Wales occupies as a nation; that she has a peculiar case to be regarded as a nation, and that the use of her language does constitute a bond between her people which is, I think I may say, unique in the British Isles. Also, we call Wales "gallant little Wales." The mere fact that she is a small country does not at all diminish our respect or regard for her. We are quite ready to accept the statement made by my right hon. Friend opposite, that Wales has a stupendous soul. He might claim to have that himself. I must put in this caveat that perhaps he will allow an Englishman to claim that he has a correspondingly large soul, whatever the word "stupendous" may mean. Perhaps it is on that ground that I rather deprecate these suggestions made, in one case by the hon. Baronet, with finger outstretched, who offered me a very serious warning? I think another hon. Member offered me a threat, while the hon. Member for Merioneth made an appeal which was in no sense a threat, and he himself disclaimed that there should be any threat Again, the right hon. Member for Cam-borne used a note of seduction to Members in order that they might cease their allegiance to the Coalition and join the party to which he belongs. I am not sure that that sort of atmosphere, created in that manner, is the best condition in which to discuss what, after all, must be a practical proposal. If we are to regard it as a matter of threats or warnings, or anything else, I feel confident that a certain number of these who are English-born will have the requisite courage to stand up against threats or warnings. Just as I should expect a Welshman, if I threatened him, immediately to speak in somewhat strong language to me, and certainly to refuse what I asked him to do under a threat, so perhaps a Welshman may understand that there is a sufficient gallantry in Englishmen to withstand any threats from any quarters, and we hope by that course still to maintain the respect of Welsh Members.
Let me therefore dispose, if I can, of this atmosphere, and come back to what is the practical proposal. The question of dividing up the country for certain purposes has been considered very largely of late, and we have a report which has been laid on the important question of devolution. Further, we have in a number of matters considered that it is possible to accede to the demands which from time to time have been made by different parts of the community, or nations, if you please, which constitute the whole of Great Britain and Ireland. All these questions are part of a larger whole, and the argument which is addressed at the present time to this House is that Wales is a nation, and that therefore it ought to have a Wages Board of its own, is really an argument which goes far beyond the point at issue. If Wales is desirous of being treated as a nation, and as a whole itself, it is entitled, upon that reasoning, to have its own Secretary, as Scotland has. It is entitled to have a great deal more than a mere Central Wages Board. I am far from saying that at the appropriate time that will not have to be considered and may not be considered. What I am pointing out is that that is a matter which ought to be considered as a whole, and that to ask for what may be called the demands of Wales as a nation, and then to say that it is on that ground that, while you maintain the unity of government with Wales on a great number of questions—I will not put it higher than that—you are to dissociate this particular matter and to deal with it individually, is really to misunderstand the reason and argument put forward in favour of this claim. I want to come to a particular point. A good many arguments have been addressed by an hon. Member from York shire and the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, who support the claim because they think it would be right and just that there should be far greater decentralisation. I think the right way to deal with that question is not from the point of view of Wales alone, but from whether or not there ought to be decentralisation, and decentralisation which, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, would be actually due in the case of Yorkshire, if it were admitted in the case of Wales.

Mr. E. WOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept an Amendment if I moved one in these terms?

Sir E. POLLOCK: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not really in charge of the Bill, and I have not really had an opportunity of considering the question with my right hon. Friend. Perhaps I may continue my argument. What I think the House has got to make up its mind to is this. Is it prepared to deal with the question, not merely from the point of view of Wales as a nation, but from the point of view of asking that there shall be a large measure of decentralisation? The immediate question you have to consider is whether it is necessary, while giving a just measure, and of properly dealing with the question, to have a system of co-ordination in respect to which you can maintain your central authority. I do not think these who ask that you should sever the country into various areas have realised the fact that if you do that you will still be obliged to have something like co-ordination set up in order to have a standard maintained in these areas which are contiguous to one another, and where undoubtedly you may come upon a very large number of hard cases because of an artificial line drawn through the area. I hope I have said nothing which can be interpreted as otherwise than respectful to or as otherwise than in cordial admiration of Wales. At the same time I hope I have demonstrated that a much larger question is involved.

Mr. HINDS: I am very glad to see a little gleam of hope in the speech of the learned Solicitor-General. As far as we Welsh Members are concerned, we do not mind for a moment whether there is a separate Board in every county in England as long as we have one in Wales. I want to impress upon the House the fact that this is a national demand. We have here 36 Members, representing Welsh constituencies, making this simple demand for a separate Agricultural Wages Board for Wales. It is astonishing to learn that the right hon. Member (Sir A. Boscawen) in charge of the Bill, with all his sympathies, still says that this concession is inconvenient. The Government could give Wales a National Health Insurance Commission, and why not this concession? We are asking for it because
the conditions in Wales are so different from these in England. Wales is a land of small holdings. There are something like 60,000 of them throughout the country. We who come from Wales know these things, and without any threat we ask the House of Commons to give us this concession. We ought to be strong enough to get it. The man who talks most in this House gets most. We Members from Wales have long been too silent. The Government give us cheap sympathy. They say it is inconvenient, that it does not pan out and a heap of other things. We do not believe it. Our people in Wales ask us to get this concession to-night in spite of everything, and I am here to voice their demand. You talk about decentralisation; we want it. We could do our business far better in Wales than it is done in Westminster. Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill the conditions in Wales. He knows our ambition with regard to this thing. He knows that when our people pay large fares in order to come to London with proposals, these proposals are turned down continuously, because the people who deal with them cannot know the conditions in Wales. The whole land of Wales is asking for this simple thing, and every farmer in the country will know to-morrow whether it has been denied or not. The agriculturists concerned are largely poor men. The Welsh farmer is afraid to come to the magnates here in London because very often he does not understand the language; he is a Welshman and cannot speak the English tongue, and he fears coming to the great metropolis to air his grievances. I appeal to the Governent to reconsider the matter.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We have listened to a most impassioned appeal from the hon. Member. I can assure him that it is difficult indeed for me to resist such an appeal. I realise as well as any man in this House that the position of Wales is different in many respects from that of an ordinary English county. I realise the great difference made by language and that this appeal is brought forward practically unanimously by Welsh Members. It has been supported, moreover, by Members for English constituencies. I confess, too, that I have to some extent misjudged the situation. I did not realise
that there would be this very great interest taken in Wales in the establishment of a separate Wages Board. The matter did not appear to me to be of special importance. I could quite understand Welsh Members asking for a separate Ministry, and with a separate Ministry a separate Wages Board would undoubtedly follow, but I did not realise—I suppose it is owing to the fact that I have lived in England, with rare intervals, for some years—that on this particular question there would be such strong national sentiment arising. I do not go back for a moment on what the Solicitor-General has said, or on what I said earlier in the Debate and in Committee. I think the course proposed is inconvenient. I must warn hon. Members that it may be expensive—it will certainly be more expensive to have a separate Wages Board for Wales than to have a joint Board for England and Wales. It is only right and proper that I should make that statement, which I know to be true. At the same time, if there is—and I gather there is—this strong demand, if it is felt, having regard to any difficulties and differences that distinguish Wales from the ordinary English county, that it is desirable in the interests of Wales that Wales should have a separate Board, if it is felt that Welshmen have not got confidence in the decisions given, and Welsh agricultural labourers feel that their interests are not being properly studied, and if tenant farmers feel that they may be unjustly dealt with by a predominantly English Central Board, then I say that, though the cost may be more, it is worth while, in order to get content in Wales among all these interested in agriculture in Wales, to make this concession.
I realise, of course, that there are considerable differences in farming operations in Wales from these in England. Wales is predominantly a grass country, and cannot be otherwise, and it has a higher proportion of upland farms and a much larger number of small holdings than in most places in England. You may find in some English counties, such as Westmoreland or Cumberland, similar conditions. There is in Wales also the national spirit and the feeling that they require separate treatment, and the language difficulty, which is a great difficulty and which does not exist anywhere
else in the United Kingdom in the same degree. Therefore, if it is the wish, as I gather, of practically every Member from Wales and also of a large number of English Members, as the Amendment has been supported by many of them, then, even though at an earlier stage I resisted the Amendment and my hon. and learned Friend has taken the same line, having regard to the feeling of Welsh Members and to the differences that exist, though Wales has not and is not to have a separate Ministry of Agriculture, if it is the general wish of the House that it should have a separate Wages Board, I am not prepared to carry my opposition any further, and I am willing to accept the Amendment.

Sir F. BANBURY: The Parliamentary Secretary, in the course of his speech, stated that the acceptance of this Amendment will cost the country more. This being the Report stage, I ask whether it is in order to accept an Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has twice informed the House will add to the expense?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have not heard the whole of the discussion. The question is, will this impose a fresh charge?

Sir F. BANBURY: That is what the Minister says. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is a matter of opinion."] He has twice said that the result of this will be to impose an extra charge upon the country. I do not know whether it will be so or not, but the Government having admitted that it will do so, I submit that the Clause is not in order.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is it not pure conjecture on the part of the Minister? Can the House accept as a proved tact what the Minister put forward as a conjecture? The Minister brought forward no figures to prove that this will actually impose a charge upon the taxpayer.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I think my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) is wrong in saying that it is admitted that it will impose a charge. That is his translation of what my right, hon. Friend said. What my right hon. Friend did say was that the system would be more expensive. He did not indicate or suggest that under this Clause a charge would be imposed. The system of the
Wages Board might have to be rearranged by some method whereby the difficulty of greater expense could be met, if in fact that were the case. That is what he foreshadowed. He did not use the words which the right hon. Gentleman attributed to him, that there would necessarily be a charge imposed.

Mr. SPEAKER: The point is, will it impose a fresh charge?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: On that point of Order. May I say there is a charge already for the payment of the expenses of Agricultural Wages Boards? I anticipate that that charge may be increased, but there will be no fresh charge. That charge may, of course, be increased in other ways. Mr. Speaker asked whether there would be a fresh charge, and my answer is I do not think there will be. We know that existing charges are constantly increased by the automatic increases which lire going on. This will undoubtedly entail additional expenditure; but, as my hon. and learned Friend said, there will be specifically no fresh charge.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that disposes of the difficulty of a fresh charge. If there is no fresh charge, the House can consider the Clause on Report.

Mr. ACLAND: May I ask will Wales, with its new Wages Board, start with the same regulations with regard to levels of wages and other matters as now apply to England, or will they start de novo and work out their own levels of wages and other conditions?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has already spoken.

Mr. ACLAND: I am asking a question. The Debate has taken a very fresh turn by the concession made in the last minute. I do not want the new Wages Board to go back to a lower wage than the amount of 46s., but to start from that.

Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I think the right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake in agreeing to accept this new scheme. I am rather surprised that Members of the Labour party are not representing the view of the agricultural labourer in this matter. The agricultural labourer has as much right to be considered here as the Welsh farmer, and the whole tendency of the labour movement is against splitting up the country in regard to wage matters. In my experience of the agricultural
labour movement we always viewed the disposition on the part of Welsh representatives to demand distinct treatment as representing a desire there that a lower standard of wages should be established. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am simply representing the case as I used to know it when working in the agricultural labouring movement, and I can only say it is a suspicion existing in the minds of these who control that movement. No trade union in the country splits up on that basis. Trade unions are international because of the fact that general labouring conditions are similar throughout the whole country. We considered this matter, I remember, when the original Corn Production Bill was being drafted, and I know then that I sought the opinion of the party with which I was then closely identified, and acting on their instructions, or at any rate with their concurrence, I resisted the tendency towards the creation of a number of these Wages Boards. There is no getting away from the fact that it would tend to cause friction in labour matters, and moreover it must be a most costly expediency. I confess to some amazement when I find the Government being pressed to undertake fresh commitments involving very heavy expenditure coming from these who are the first in their constituencies to speak in favour of the Government practising economy.
What must happen? You will have an entirely new Wages Board, consisting, I suppose, exclusively of Welsh representatives, but in my opinion you will find that utterly impracticable. The agricultural labourer must be represented by competent persons, and he will select them from his trade unions not according to their nationality but according to the amount of confidence he has in them and according to their competency to represent him in his demands, and it may well occur that you will have men sitting on the Welsh Wages Board coming from remote parts of this country, and being compelled to make frequent and sustained journeys to Wales in order to carry out work which in my opinion—and I speak with some knowledge—is being efficiently carried out now by the Central Wages Board. Altogether I am afraid that my right hon. Friend will soon find that he will be subjected to pressure from the labour movement and that he has made a mistake and certainly has not moved in
the direction of economy or greater efticiency in this matter. When the original Insurance Bill was before this House, we know that the House yielded then to these national demands, and the House had not yielded long before we found that it was a most inefficient method of administration, and a more costly method, and the labour movement has persistently put. forward a demand that there should be one administrative authority for the United Kingdom. I am sure that the principle they adopted in respect of the Insurance Act is the one they would prefer to be applied in respect to this wage matter, and whilst I am not entitled to speak on behalf of the Labour party, I fear that they have committed an error on this occasion and that they have net followed their usual course of being very watchful of the interests of organised labour, and of the agricultural labourer in particular.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. LANE-FOX: I should like to point out that the ground on which the Parliamentary Secretary has accepted the new Clause is an entirely different ground from that on which the Solicitor-General supported it. The Solicitor-General told the Welsh Members that it could only be accepted as part of the scheme of general decentralisation, that it was not a concession to Welsh nationality but to the general need for decentralisation, and he quoted with some approval the demand for a Board, for instance, for Yorkshire and other parts of the country. The Parliamentary Secretary took an absolutely different line. Following immediately in the Debate, he made the concession entirely on the ground of Welsh nationality. Personally, I approve of the concession, and I am glad to see it made, but I should like again to point out how much easier and better we should get on in this House if Members of the Government could make up their minds which leg they would stand on, and having made up their minds, to remember which leg it was.

Sir DAVID DAVIES: As a Member representing the largest agricultural constituency in Wales, and also as a member of the existing Board, which has been very much abused here to-day, I should like to refer to the danger suggested by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) as to the minimum wage.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman! that not only the minimum wage has been paid throughout Wales, but a wage which far exceeds that, and he may be quite sure that wages in Wales will not be less than in other parts of the country. As to the point mentioned by the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Roberts), there are an equal number representing, labour and the farmers, and we have had, to show you the real necessity of a Board for Wales, a unanimous opinion of the District Wage Board that I sit on, of both labour and employers, sent up to London, and it has been turned down, and they have sent out a different regulation. That shows that these gentlemen do not understand the conditions in Wales, and I plead very strongly with the Government not only to grant this right to Wales, but to use it in the very best interests of all parties.

Proposed Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Sir R. THOMAS: The next two Clauses on the Paper constitute a Welsh Land Court and give security of tenure, but we are so appreciative of what has just been granted to us by the Government that I do not press them, and as the right hon. Gentleman assures us that under no circumstances can he grant us the Land Court and security of tenure, it means wasting time for us to proceed. I therefore do not move either of these Clauses.

CLAUSE 1.—(Continuance of Corn Production Act, 1917.)

(1)Subject as hereinafter provided, the provisions of the Act of 1917 shall continue in force until Parliament otherwise deter mines:

Provided that it shall be lawful for His Majesty, on an address presented to him by both Houses of Parliament praying that the Act of 1917 shall cease to be in force, by Order in Council to declare that that Act shall cease to be in force on the expiration of the fourth year subsequent to the-year in which the Order is made.

(2)In the event of an Order in Council being made under this Section, the expiration of the Provisions of Part I of the Act of 1917 by virtue of the Order shall not affect the right to any payments under the said Part I in respect of the wheat and oats of the year on the termination of which these Provisions expire or of any previous year, or any rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities acquired, accrued, or incurred under these Provisions before the date on
which these provisions expire, or any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed under these Provisions before that date, or in respect of any statement or representation made in connection with a claim under these Provisions, whether the statement, representation, or claim was made before or after that date.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Act" ["that that Act shall cease to be"] to insert the words "and this Act."
This Clause continues the provisions of the Corn Production Act, and Part I of the Corn Production Act provides for the minimum prices of wheat and oats. The proviso in this Clause provides that the Corn Production Act shall cease to be in force on an Address presented to His Majesty by both Houses of Parliament, and an Order in Council made there under. Therefore, if both Houses of Parliament decide that the guaranteed prices or the Wages Board, one or other, shall come to an end, they shall both come to an end. The other provision of the Bill we are discussing is to continue and amend the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act in various particulars. The object of this Amendment is to provide that if the Houses of Parliament agree that any part of this Bill shall come to an end, the whole shall come to an end, instead of only part of it. The theory, as I understand it, of lumping together the extension of the Corn Production Act and a further Amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act is that the two things depend on one another, or, in other words, are interdependent, and it is argued somehow in this way. The agricultural labourer was, before the Corn Production Act, badly paid, I agree. By the Corn Production Act a Wages Board was set up to make his wages quite independent of the state of the industry, to enable him to bring up his wife and family, and live in that degree of comfort as the state of society reasonably demands.
That conclusion—a perfectly proper one from my point of view—having been arrived at, the farmer said, "I cannot pay these wages in the face of the dumping down of all the corn that is grown in the world, and if you are going to tie one arm behind my back, and insist on the agricultural labourer being paid a proper wage, and one more proportionate to the wages paid in the town, you must
guarantee me against loss when this competition is so severe so that I shall be able to pay these wages," but not so that he shall make a profit. The only way that the Corn Production Act ensures that is that the State shall guarantee him minimum prices on the wheat and oats that he grows. To that extent these two things are mutually interdependent. The Government having done that, somebody says, "Oh, but if the State does this, where does the State come in? The State, therefore, must have control over the farming operations of the farmer." For this purpose this Bill provides a series of Clauses by which the farmer is put absolutely at the mercy of the county councils, and this Bill provides that the farmer is to farm according to the dictates of the county council.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to be covering the whole ground of the Bill. This is a very small Amendment. The proposal is that if the Houses of Parliament ask that the Act of 1917 shall come to an end, His Majesty, by Order in Council, will not only bring that to an end, but also this Bill. That is a very small Amendment, and perhaps the hon. Member will confine himself to that. We are not discussing the Bill as a whole now.

Mr. CAUTLEY: With that statement I entirely agree. I was only stating the general effect of the Act to show that the things are mutually interdependent, and that if one comes to an end the whole ought to come to an end. With deference, I was not explaining the whole of the Bill—far from it. Of course, if it is ruled out of Order, I cannot proceed, but I was not going to be very much longer in what I had to say. I will endeavour to carry out the directions of Mr. Speaker, as I always do. I had got as far as saying that, if the State controlled the farmer's operations, the farmer must be secured in his occupation, and the Clauses further in the Bill are directed to securing to the farmer compensation for the restrictions under which he is put by the control. I should have been glad to enlarge on it, I will only say that if the two Houses of Parliament decide that one part of the Bill ought to be put an end to, the whole ought to come to an end, and the whole matter ought to be reconsidered by Parliament.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: In supporting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend it seems to me that if Part I of the Bill goes Part II must go also. The objection may be raised that Part II is an Amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act, and that this—Part I—is only called an Amendment of the Corn Production Act. But when the provisions of the two parts of the Bill come to be examined, it will be found that Part I deals not only with minimum and average prices, but also like Part II with the Agricultural Holdings Act and the relations between landlord and tenant. I understand that something in the nature of a compromise has been come to by the Government with the representatives of the Farmers Union, something to this effect: that if the representatives of the Farmers' Union will support the Government in relation to the ploughing-up Clauses of Part I of the Bill, then the Government, in return, will give them Part II and compensation for disturbance.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: indicated dissent.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: The right hon. Gentleman says "No," but I know something about the matter.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: So do I!

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: That is the case in relation to Part I. There is to be a concession by the Government on the question of guaranteed prices. In Part II there is to be a concession by the owners of land in consideration of the guarantee, and in order to encourage the greater production of corn. If Part I of the Bill, which gives a Government guarantee, goes altogether why on earth should the owners be left saddled with the provisions of Part II? It seems to me the two parts of the Bill are quite indivisible on any ground whatever, and that Part I should not be repealed unless Part II goes also.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: In so far as the Amendment applies to the first part of the Bill I submit it is unnecessary. It is proposed to terminate by Order in Council in the way suggested in the Bill the provisions of the Corn Production Act. But if hon. Members will look at Clause 25, Sub-section (5), they will see that this Bill is to be read with the Corn Production Act, as amended by this Act. It is, therefore, so far as the
termination of this Act is concerned, already provided for in the Bill as it stands. In so far as the Amendment would give the power to terminate at the same time the provisions of Part II, although I did not interrupt my hon Friend, I venture to submit that that is really not in order, because this is a Clause, the title of which is the continuance of the Corn Production Act of 1917. The second part refers to the continuance or discontinuance of another matter altogether, namely, the Amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act. I do not see how that can be done in the Clause which is limited by its title to the continuance of the Corn Production Act. But on the merits of the case, putting aside the question whether it is strictly in order or not, I cannot conceive hon. Members really expect that the new conditions of tenure which are proposed in this Bill should be terminated by Order in Council in four years! That may be a quite proper proceeding in the matter of guaranteed prices. It may be a quite proper proceeding in the matter of control and cultivation, and it is provided for in the Bill as it stands. But really when you have certain conditions of tenure laid down, to suggest that this House should alter these which are of a permanent character by Order in Council is such that I can hardly believe my hon. Friend wishes to see it carried. My hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last suggested a bargain. He has absolutely no foundation at all for that suggestion. My hon. Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Royds) said he knew something about it. If there had been any bargain I should have known something about it, and I know nothing about it. Neither I nor the Minister of Agriculture have entered into any bargain whatsoever. I submit that you cannot terminate conditions of tenure by an Order in Council and four years' notice. Then there is my point of order as to whether you can continue or discontinue a Bill which deals with an Amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act on a Clause which is limited to an Amendment of the Corn Production Act.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think the words of Clause 25, Sub-section (5), will be clear to the people who will be affected by this Act. The words are:
References to the Act of 1908, or to the Act of 1917, or to any provision of either of these Acts, shall be construed as
referring to that Act or to that provision as amended by any other Act, including this Act.
I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman is doing now what I said he always did do when any Amendment was moved with which he did not agree, that is, he says it is superfluous and not necessary, and yet when we showed him that a former Amendment was superfluous and unnecessary, simply because it was moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite, we thought possibly at the instigation of the Government, my right hon. Friend immediately accepts it, although it is superfluous.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I never accepted any Amendment from hon. Members opposite, or any other body of hon. Members, which I said was superfluous.

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not say my right hon. Friend said the Amendment was superfluous. What I said was that we proved that it was superfluous. Possibly we did not prove it to my right hon. Friend, because he had made up his mind that he would not listen to any new arguments. I have much pleasure in supporting this Amendment. The Corn Production Act was justified on the ground that, if the Government put its hand into its pocket and gave a subsidy to the farmers, in return the farmers must do certain things. I think it was unfortunate that the farmers accepted that arrangement. That is what I think probably will happen when this Bill comes to be put into operation. In this case the Bill only continues, for four years, the guarantee (under the Act of 1917) of money which the Government will give to the farmers. But all the other things which the farmers were supposed to give to the Government in return for that guarantee are to be continued, although the guarantee no longer exists. The object of my hon. Friend is simply to make certain, not in any ambiguous words such as I read just now, but in clear phrases which can be understood of the common people, that in the event of the Government guarantee coming to an end, all the obligations which were imposed on the farmers because they were going to have that guarantee shall equally come to an end. If that is not a reasonable and sensible proposition, I do not know what would
be, and I trust that my right hon. Friend will show some of that spirit of reasonableness which induced him to accept what Welsh hon. Members on the other side put before him, although he was at the same time told of the probable dire results that would occur at the next Election if he did not do as they wished.

Mr. E. WOOD: If I understand this point, it is rather less simple than the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) would lead us to believe. It may have been quite simple to him, but there are these of us who find it rather more difficult as he explained it. The point is this. If my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment were accepted, the only result would be that if the guarantee were withdrawn, Part II of this Bill would go as well as Part I. My right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury), in his concluding observations, said it was quite reasonable that if the guarantee went, all the obligations imposed on the farmers should also go. As the Bill now stands, the whole of Part I will go if the guarantees are revoked at any time. But the veal point is whether we shall extend the same abolition to Part II. I suggest to my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment that that is not a reasonable proposition. Part II deals with a wholly different subject— with agricultural holdings and tenancies. Suppose you revoke your guarantee and your obligations under Part I at the end of four years, it is a light matter; but by that time you will have established a new system of agricultural holdings, and to upset that is really to suggest something which is impossible. The right course, I suggest, is that recommended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) earlier in the evening, that we should not confuse two things which are essentially distinct, but should take stops to get Part II so as to act as to make it worthy of being incorporated in the whole structure of the Agricultural Holdings Act.

Mr. ACLAND: I hope that the hon. Member (Mr. Cautley) will see fit hot to press this Amendment. Hon. Members opposite really succeeded very well in Committee in bolstering up the guarantees, and making them very much stronger than they were when the Bill was introduced. At first it was only necessary to petition with regard to the guaranteed
prices, but in Committee they made that impossible, and as the Bill now stands it is necessary to petition, not only against the guaranteed prices, but against the whole of Part IV of the Act of 1917. The Wages Board—including the new Wages Board for Wales—would also have to go if you wanted to do anything with regard to the guaranteed prices. Surely that is enough bolstering up of these guaranteed prices. Surely it is not necessary also to say that Parliament can do nothing whatever with regard to modifying the position in regard to guaranteed prices, even after four years' notice. Of course, the Act can be repealed, but otherwise nothing at all can be done in that direction, since this Amendment would involve petitioning also to have all the provisions of Part II deleted as well. I think that would really be a mistake. It shows undue nervousness. There are excellent provisions, with which everyone agrees, in this Bill. For instance, with regard to the extension of the Evesham custom, with regard to compensation for high farming—about which there is a difference of opinion—with regard to reducing the costs of arbitration, and simplifying arbitrations, and with regard to the tenure of allotments, which is to be dealt with when the Bill is re-committed. All these would have to go. It is rather absurd to try to link up the question whether Parliament might or might not want to modify the guaranteed prices with all these other questions, which stand on their merits, and ought to be allowed to form part of our legislation, if Parliament signifies its approval of them by passing this Bill. Whether or not it is right to guarantee prices for agricultural products is a separate subject, and I do not think this further suggested bolstering up is really needed.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I hope that the Government will not try to ride two horses at once. I think we all agree that Part II deals with matters which are quite different from these dealt with in Part I, but the Government have tied them together, and have created the impression in the country, and amongst these connected with agriculture, that the whole of this structure is one essential whole, all hanging together, to increase production. That really is not so, and I think my hon. Friend, in moving this
Amendment, has made that perfectly clear to the House. At any rate, we must recognise now that Part II has t6 stand by itself on its merits, and that it cannot be argued that Part II is a necessary corollary to the other provisions of the Bill, like minimum wages, increasing production, and so on. If the discussion of this Amendment brings that clearly to the mind of the House, I think my hon. Friend will have served a good purpose.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "of Part I" ["the expiration of the provisions of Part I]; leave out the words, "the said Part I" ["any payments under the said Part I"], and insert instead thereof the words, "Part I of that Act."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment as to minimum price and average price.)

(1) The minimum prices for the wheat and oats of the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one and any subsequent year shall be such prices for a statutory quarter as correspond to the following minimum prices for the wheat and oats respectively of the year nineteen hundred and nineteen (hereinafter referred to as "the standard year"): —

Wheat
…
68s. per customary quarter of 504 pounds.


Oats
…
46s. per customary quarter of 336 pounds.

and the corresponding minimum prices shall be fixed in respect of each year in accordance with the following; provisions:—

(a) The Commissioners to be appointed under this Part of this Act shall as soon as possible after the completion of the harvest in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one and each subsequent year ascertain the percentage by which the cost of production of the wheat and oats respectively of that year is greater or less than the cost of production of the wheat and oats respectively of the standard year.
(b) In ascertaining the variation in the cost of production no account shall be taken of any variation of rent:
(c) The corresponding minimum prices for the wheat and oats respectively of any year shall be such sums as are certified by the Commissioners to bear to the minimum prices for the wheat and oats respectively of the standard year the same proportion as the cost of production of the wheat and oats respectively of the year for which the prices are to be fixed bears to the cost of production
329
of the wheat and oats respectively of the standard year.

(2) Any fraction of a penny in the average price or minimum price per statutory quarter shall be disregarded.
(3) The foregoing provisions of this Section shall have effect in substitution for the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Act of 1917.
(4) The expression "statutory quarter" shall be substituted for the expression "quarter" wherever that expression occurs in the Act of 1917.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, a), after the word "ascertain," to insert the words:
in consultation with the Minister, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland.
Clause 2 lays down the; methods whereby the Commissioners who are to be appointed under Clause 3 are to ascertain the variations in the cost of production from year to year, and on the variations in the cost of production will depend the guaranteed prices. When the Bill was originally introduced, it was proposed to have three Commissioners, one appointed by the three Boards of Agriculture together, one appointed by the Board of Trade, who is intended to represent the interest of the consumers, and one appointed by the Treasury to look after the interests of the taxpayer. In the course of the discussions in Committee an Amendment was carried against the Government by one vote to increase the number of Commissioners from three to five, and put in one representing the Ministry of Agriculture of England and Wales, one representing the Scottish Board, and one representing the Irish Board. I cannot discuss this matter in detail at this stage. It will be my duty whim we reach Clause 3 to ask the House to revert to the original plan of three Commissioners, about which I will not argue at this moment. But we realise that if there are not to be specific Commissioners, representing different parts of the United Kingdom, there must be some kind of machinery whereby it shall be made quite clear that the respective interests of the different parts of the United Kingdom are properly taken into account, and in order therefore that that may be arranged, I propose to move this Amendment here, that the three Commissioners, in ascertaining the cost of production shall do so in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and
Fisheries in England and Wales, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, Ireland. In that way the Commissioners will be brought into touch with the Departments responsible in all the three kingdoms. The sole object of my Amendment is to carry that out at this stage and I will speak further about the proposal to reduce the number of Commissioners from five to three when we reach Clause 3. In the meantime I cannot conceive that any hon. Member would wish to oppose this Amendment. It does not in any way commit the House to accept my Amendment or Clause 3, but it at all events assures that the interests of the different parts of the United Kingdom shall be taken into account.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: It really is so difficult to follow this Bill that I must ask what may appear to be a very simple question. If we accept the Amendment, will that commit us to accept the right hon. Gentleman's reversion—

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have already said that will not follow. Accepting this in no way commits the House to accepting my subsequent Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I do not follow it.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Will the effect of the Amendment be that the action of the Commissioners in fixing prices could be debated here on the Minister's salary? It is a rather important point for us. If that is so, it would be an inducement to accept the Amendment. Perhaps the Solicitor-General could answer that. It would give the House better control if, by the Minister being consulted, he thereby assumed some responsibility for which he would have to answer to the House.

Sir E. POLLOCK: My right hon. Friend invites me to respond. My impression is that it would be possible, but, of course, that is not really a lawyer's opinion. It would be a matter of the practice and procedure of the House, but my impression, so far as I understand the procedure of the House, is that my right hon. Friend Is right.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I desire to impress on the House that I shall not henceforth be as prominent in the discussions on the Bill as
I have hitherto been. It has only happened that the Amendments I was interested in came earlier in the Bill. I should like to ask what is the object of these Commissioners consulting the Boards of Agriculture. I view this with very great suspicion. I sat on the Agricultural Commission which considered very carefully questions about the guaranteed prices, and though agreeing with the majority report, I did so with very great mental reservations, which I do not suppose many hon. Members troubled to read. Having got the Wages Board established, and established for a number of years, the question we had to consider was whether the farmers could carry on their business and pay the wages fixed by the Wages Board independent of the profits of the farming industry, without some subsidy. The minority reported that they could, but that they ought to have a free market, and that there should be no control of the industry. With that report I was in agreement, but I differed from them on the ground that the farmers could not carry on their business without a subsidy so long as the Wages Board was in existence and wages were fixed without their consent or approval. The question then arose, how these guaranteed prices could be fixed, and I took the view, and I put it to the House now, that it is absolutely essential that these guaranteed prices should, if any confidence at all is to be placed in the fixing of the prices, be fixed by some body entirely independent of the Government. So strongly was I of that view, that I reported on a special mode for making the minimum guaranteed price vary according to the wages, and the wages only; the object of that being that the farmers who were going to grow wheat or oats would know exactly what they were likely to expect. They would know what the current rates of wages were while they were growing the wheat, and the price of wheat would vary on these wages and these wages alone. If that had been adopted wheat would have been grown in much larger quantity. The Government have accepted the proposition that the guaranteed prices are to be fixed by three Commissioners. The Bill provides for five Commissioners, but they are to be reduced to three. The prices are to be fixed according to the increase in the cost of production from a standard price which
is fixed at 68s. for wheat and 46s. for oats. No variation is to be taken into account in the amount of rent. The Commissioners are not informed of what items or on what principle the 68s. figure is made up. They have already an ex tremely difficult problem to work out, which cannot be checked; which no farmer would be able to understand, and which under the Bill as it is drawn will never be ascertained until nearly two years after the farmer has made up his mind to grow his wheat. It is, therefore, a very indefinite problem that has to be worked out by the three Commissioners. The object of this Bill being to secure the growing of wheat by the farmers, it is essential, and the most important point in the Bill, that the farmer should have confidence in the fixing of the prices, which are going to be fixed a year and a half or two years after the wheat is grown, and that he should have confidence in the men who are going to fix the prices. A subsidy to the farmer is anathema to the urban dweller, whether workman or employer, and farmers must look with the greatest suspicion on the method which the Government have adopted of fixing these guarantees, the difficult problem that is being set the men who have to fix them and the appointment of these men. Farmers have no means of checking these prices. The one safeguard they have is the appointment of independent persons to fix them. It is now proposed to remove that safeguard, and these three Commissioners are to act in consultation, which means, I take it, by direction of a particular branch of the Government. Every farmer will look with more and more suspicion on these prices. I would ask the Minister to explain on what ground it is thought necessary to take away from the farmer the safeguard of three persons independent of the Government, and make them subservient to a Government Department.

Lieut.-Colonel COURTHEPE: I hope my right hon. Friend will think twice about pressing this Amendment on the House. If he does press it, I hope the House will reject it. He has not told us the motive of the Amendment, or what impression it is intended to convey. I ask him to consider what impression it will convey to the farmer, to whom this Clause is held out as an inducement as being of value. He will say, "Here is a Govern-
ment who, if the prices fall, will have to pay these guaranteed prices to us. They are endeavouring to keep in their own hands the people to settle the amount to be paid." It will at once create distrust. I am not suggesting that the Ministers concerned would act in a dishonourable way, but it is not sufficient that they should have honourable motives—it is necessary that the farmers concerned should have confidence in their honourable motives, and by pressing this Amendment you would destroy that feeling of confidence and give the farmers generally the impression that the Government intend to trick them.

Mr. TOWNLEY: I hope sincerely that the Government will not press this Amendment. If they do the whole fixing of the guaranteed prices will fall upon a Government Department, and this will raise very serious doubts in the minds of producers of corn. There is a great want of confidence among farmers in the Board of Agriculture, and that is leading to a serious reduction in the wheat area. There are large arable farms throughout the country that should be producing a very large quantity of wheat and are not. I know of one farm of 700 acres, one-fourth of which should be growing wheat, which is not growing any wheat, at all owing to want of confidence as to the price to be given for wheat. It is this want of confidence which is being engendered throughout the country which we want to stop. You will deal a very severe blow to that confidence if you persist in the Amendment now before the House.

Mr. ROYCE: In Committee upstairs I moved an Amendment by which I sought to make the Commissioners consult the Agricultural Costings Committee. I had hoped that my right hon. Friend would have taken this into consideration. I know his argument at the time was that it was not a statutory Committee, but I think that something in the nature of an Agricultural Costings Committee would be a consultative body that could be consulted with greater freedom, and would be able to express themselves as being more perfectly acquainted with the cost of production than the official references to which he proposes to refer. Such a Costings Committee would ensure confidence among the agricultural community. I had hoped that the right hon.
Gentleman would have included this in his Amendment, but since he has not done so, it may not even yet be too late to ask him to reconsider his decision.

Sir J. HOPE: This Amendment is, of course, a prelude to upsetting the decision of the Committee upstairs, and, as such, I attach considerable importance to it. As the Bill loft this House it provided for three Commissioners, and upstairs it was altered, the Committee deciding to appoint five. The only objection put forward to the five Commissioners by the Government was on the ground of increased expense. If you pass this Amendment you will be still further increasing the expense. The expense of consulting three Government Departments situated in three parts of the United Kingdom, cither by letter or by having representatives where the Commissioners are sitting, will be far greater than by allowing the decision of the Committee to stand, and by having five part-time Commissioners instead of three. I hope the House will confirm the decision of the Committee.

Mr. SPEAKER: We must consider this proposition apart from that.

Sir J. HOPE: I oppose it on the ground that it will add extra expense by consultations being required and also on the same, ground as that taken by other speakers, viz., that you will be placing it under Government Departments and interfering with the freedom of action of the Commissioners.

Sir H. HOPE: The right hon. Gentleman's action will cause keen disappointment in Scotland. Scottish farmers have never asked for a guarantee. They have always tried to produce a sufficient quantity of food without any subvention. It is essential that there should be confidence among all classes of the agricultural community. This Amendment merely proposes that the Commissioners shall consult the Board. Scottish agriculturists think that that is not sufficient. They will therefore be keenly disappointed if this Amendment is carried.

Major O'NEILL: I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that the proposal of the Amendment is not so good, from the point of view of Scotland or Ireland, as the proposal to have the five Commissioners. At the same time, I
think the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment has been, rather unnecessarily, unjustly and coldly received by the House. As I look upon it, if the Government are successful in reinstating the three Commissioners and getting rid of the five Commissioners, as they stand now in the Bill, surely it is better to have this Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman's than nothing at all. At any rate, so far as the Irish party is concerned, I think Ireland will have some small grain of comfort in feeling that these three Commissioners, one of whom is not to be appointed by them, apparently, shall at any rate be obliged to go to the Department of Agriculture in Ireland and obtain from it some idea as to the state of affairs operating in that country. Short of the original purpose. I consider that this Amendment is some slight sop to us, and I shall certainly support it.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think that we need to consider the opinion of the Irish farmers at the present time. It is not that I have any want of respect for the opinion of Irish farmers. The Homo Rule Bill, we understand, is shortly to be passed, and I presume that the Irish farmers will look after their own interests, and they can pass an Act which will render this Bill nugatory. I want to remind the House of one thing. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) asked the Solicitor-General whether, if this Amendment were accepted, the result would be that the House would have an opportunity in Committee of criticising the action of the Board of Agriculture on the Minister's salary. I think the Solicitor-General said that that would be so. If the House will look at the Bill they will see that that opportunity already exists, because the Bill says in Clause 3 that there shall be paid to the Commissioners such remuneration
as the Treasury shall determine, and any such remuneration and the expenses of the Commissioners up to an amount sanctioned by the Treasury shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament. Therefore Parliament will have to provide the money which is necessary to find the salaries of these Commissioners. It will, therefore, be perfectly easy for the House in Committee of Supply to move to disallow the salaries of these Commissioners, and that would have practically the same effect as discussing the matter on the salary of the Minister. It is quite true that these salaries may appear in a Vote which does not, as a rule, come before the Committee, but, on the other hand, arrangements can probably be made to enable the Committee to discuss the salaries of these particular gentlemen. Therefore, I do not think there is any advantage to be gained in that way by accepting the Amendment. There comes the question, What is the use of the Amendment? This Bill, when it becomes an Act, is apparently going to last at any rate for four years, and we do not know who would be the Minister for Agriculture—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.